DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The objections to the Drawings and the Specification have been withdrawn in light of the replacement drawings and amendments to the Specification, filed 01/29/26.
The previous objections to claims 1, 5, 8, 12, and 15 have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims, filed 01/29/26. However, the previous objection to claim 19 is maintained, as presented in detail below.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims, filed 01/29/26. However, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been presented in light of the amendments to the claims, as discussed in detail below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the previously cited prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the dynamic management of retrieval activities (Remarks, filed 01/29/26, p. 12). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hall discloses wherein the timing of questions of a long-term retention test (retrieval activity) is dynamically adjusted based on user performance (e.g., successful completion of a short-term assessment and correct/incorrect test question answers) (Fig. 7; [0008]; [0030-0031]; [0039]), as discussed in detail below. Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “determining time interval between completion of the completed study unit and the retrieval activity” recited in claim 19, ln. 5-6 should likely read “determining the time interval between completion of the activity and the retrieval activity”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites in part “dynamically adjusting a spaced retrieval parameter of the retrieval activity based on a progress of the user in the study plan and based on a performance of the user during interactions with the retrieval activity”. The Specification does not disclose wherein a spaced retrieval parameter of the retrieval activity is dynamically adjusted based in part on a performance of the user during interactions with the retrieval activity. Rather, it appears that the Specification discloses determining a time interval between completion of the completed study activity and the retrieval activity based at least in part on a set of metrics which include performance of the user during interactions with past retrieval activities (see Specification, [0073-0074]). Accordingly, there is a lack of written description for the above-recited limitation.
Independent claims 8 and 15 are rejected for the same reasoning.
All dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on the independent claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites in part “providing, by the processor of the online learning system, a retrieval activity comprising presentation of the at least one study unit from the study activity after the study activity is completed, wherein a time interval between a completion of the study activity and the retrieval activity is dynamically and automatically determined based on performance of the user of the student system; and dynamically adjusting a spaced retrieval parameter of the retrieval activity based on a progress of the user in the study plan and based on a performance of the user during interactions with the retrieval activity”. It is indefinite as to how the “spaced retrieval parameter” of the retrieval activity differs from the “time interval” between completion of the study unit and the retrieval activity, and the Specification does not offer further guidance (see Specification, [0007]; [0012]; [0017]; [0052]; [0068]; [0074]).
Independent claims 8 and 15 are rejected for the same reasoning.
All dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (U.S. Pub. 2011/0091859 A1) in view of Ghildiyal et al. (WO 2022/044048 A1) (hereinafter “Ghildiyal”).
Regarding claim 1, Hall discloses – as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 – a method for conducting online learning ([0001]; [0006]), the method comprising:
maintaining, by a processor of an online learning system, a set of study units in one or more repositories, each study unit of the set of study units comprising a collection of related content (Fig. 11; [0006]; [0054]; [0093], wherein subtopics (study units) are stored by a computer and comprise a collection of related content (e.g., 10-100 flashcards));
defining, by the processor of the online learning system, a study plan comprising a sequence of a plurality of study units from the set of study units to be completed within a specified period of time and a pace defining a timeline for completing the sequence of the plurality of study units in the study plan within the specified period of time (Figs. 7 & 11; [0006]; [0042-0043]; [0045]; [0056], wherein a curriculum (study plan) is defined comprising a sequence of selected subtopics (study units) (e.g., Introduction and DNA structure, DNA transcription and replication, etc.), which are to be completed within a specified period of time (e.g., 6 weeks prior to the end of the school year) and pace, wherein targets for subtopic completion dates are outlined in order to reach a predetermined goal by a given date);
providing, by the processor of the online learning system, to a student system, a study activity based on the study plan, wherein the study activity comprises presentation of at least one study unit from the sequence of the plurality of study units in the study plan to a user of the student system (Figs. 7-9; [0006]; [0026]; [0040]; [0050]; [0052]; [0055]; [0066], wherein a subtopic (study unit) is presented (e.g., flashcard(s)) on a screen of the user, and further, upon subtopic completion, a study short-term learning test regarding the completed subtopic is presented);
providing, by the processor of the online learning system, a retrieval activity comprising presentation of the at least one study unit from the study activity after the study activity is completed, wherein a time interval between completion of the study activity and the retrieval activity is dynamically and automatically determined based on performance of the user of the student system (Fig. 7; [0008]; [0030-0031], wherein a long-term retention test comprising questions (retrieval activity) is provided to the student after completion of the subtopic(s) and short-term learning test(s), and includes at least the subtopic previously completed, and wherein the long-term retention test questions are presented at a time interval dependent upon the performance of the user (e.g., displayed less frequently at a later time if previously answered correctly on the short-term learning test(s))); and
dynamically adjusting a spaced retrieval parameter of the retrieval activity based on a progress of the user in the study plan and based on a performance of the user during interactions with the retrieval activity (Fig. 7; [0008]; [0030-0031]; [0039], wherein the long-term retention test questions are presented at a time interval dependent upon the performance of the user (e.g., at a time between two-six weeks, wherein the questions are displayed less frequently at a later time if previously answered correctly on the short-term learning test(s), and wherein if long-term test questions are missed, they would be shown over several weeks until answered correctly on two separate occasions separated by at least six weeks), and further wherein the long-term retention tests are presented according to user progress in the study plan (e.g., administered at least 2 to 3 weeks after successful completion of a short-term assessment)).
Hall may not explicitly disclose maintaining, by a processor of an online learning system, the set of study units in one or more repositories, and may further not explicitly disclose the processor of the online learning system and a student system for use by a user. However, Ghildiyal, directed to a system and method of creation of a personalized study plan in a digital learning environment, teaches these limitations (Figs. 1 & 3; [0055]; [0055]; [0079]; [0135], the digital learning environment comprising in part an e-learning server system 110, a client (student) system 130-1, and a database 150, wherein the one or more components of Fig. 1 (e.g., the e-learning server system 110) comprise in part a processor, and wherein content (e.g., learning content such as study materials, revision materials, text, etc.) is stored on a database). While Ghildiyal may not expressly teach the content (study units) stored on one or more repositories, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the database for one or more repositories, to achieve the same result of storing the content.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the hardware (database, processor of an online learning system, and student system), as taught by Ghildiyal, in the invention of Hall to achieve the online learning (Hall, [0004], the invention being directed to Internet learning; Ghildiyal, Fig. 1; [0063], an example of a digital environment to implement digital/online learning).
Regarding claim 2, Hall in view of Ghildiyal further teaches providing, by the processor of the online learning system, a preview activity comprising a presentation of one or more next study units in the study plan (Hall, [0052]; [0064]; [0098], wherein a user can be provided a preview of subtopics (e.g., flashcards) (one or more next study units in the study plan)).
Regarding claim 4, Hall in view of Ghildiyal further teaches tracking, by the processor of the online learning system, results of the study activity and the retrieval activity (Hall, Figs. 5 & 11; [0009]; [0035]; [0062]; [0079-0080], wherein the system tracks a number of flashcards viewed and answered correctly, as well as results of the tests (e.g., test questions answered correctly, short-term and long-term tests passed)).
Regarding claim 5, Hall in view of Ghildiyal further teaches wherein providing the retrieval activity further comprises: collecting a set of metrics from the results of the study activity, the set of metrics indicating performance of the user of the student system (Hall, Figs. 5 & 11; [0009]; [0035]; [0062]; [0079-0080], wherein the system tracks a number of flashcards viewed and answered correctly, as well as results of the tests (e.g., test questions answered correctly, short-term and long-term tests passed));
determining the time interval between completion of the study activity and the retrieval activity based on the set of metrics (Hall, Fig. 7; [0008]; [0030-0031], wherein the long-term retention test comprising questions (retrieval activity) is provided to the student after completion of the subtopic(s) and short-term learning test(s), and includes at least the subtopic previously completed, and wherein the long-term retention test questions are presented at a time interval dependent upon the performance of the user (e.g., displayed less frequently at a later time if previously answered correctly on the short-term learning test(s)));
providing the presentation of the at least one study unit to the student system (Hall, Fig. 7; [0008]; [0030-0031], wherein the long-term retention test comprising questions (retrieval activity) is provided to the student after completion of the subtopic(s) and short-term learning test(s), and includes at least the subtopic previously completed);
providing, through the student system, feedback on the retrieval activity based on performance of the user of the student system during the retrieval activity (Hall, Fig. 4; [0031-0033], wherein immediately upon answering a test question, an explanation (feedback) regarding the accuracy or inaccuracy of each answer is displayed to the user); and
updating the set of metrics in the results based on the performance of the user of the student system during the retrieval activity (Hall, Fig. 5; [0009]; [0035]; [0079-0080], wherein the system tracks the results of the tests (e.g., test questions answered correctly, short-term and long-term tests passed) and stores the results).
Regarding claim 6, Hall in view of Ghildiyal further teaches adjusting, by the processor of the online learning system, the study plan based on the tracking of the results of the study activity and the retrieval activity (Hall, Figs. 1 & 7; [0007]; [0027]; [0030]; [0034]; [0040], wherein the study plan, or sequence of subtopics (study units), is adjusted based on user performance of the study activity and retrieval activity (e.g., flashcards (subtopics) may be reset and re-presented to the user, short-term retention tests retried until 100% accuracy is achieved, and/or long-term test questions may be re-presented to the user until user performance results correct answers on two consecutive occasions)).
Regarding claim 7, Hall in view of Ghildiyal further teaches wherein adjusting the study plan further comprises: providing a summary of current performance of the user of the student system on the study plan (Hall, Figs. 5-6 & 11; [0005]; [0009]; [0035-0037]; [0062]; [0076-0077]; [0079-0080], wherein the system tracks a number of flashcards viewed and answered correctly, as well as results of the tests (e.g., test questions answered correctly, short-term and long-term tests passed) and displays the results through a dashboard);
determining, based on the current performance of the user of the student system on the study plan, whether the user of the student system is on the pace defined for the study plan (Hall, Fig. 7; [0042-0043]; [0045], wherein the dashboard displaying the current performance of the user is used to determine if the user is on pace).
Hall additionally discloses wherein parents or teachers may intervene if the user’s pacing is not sufficient (not making sound decisions regarding their educational progress) and may provide guidance accordingly, and/or wherein the user may determine whether pacing is sufficient and thus may adjust when to complete assessments ([0045]). However, Hall may not further explicitly disclose, by the processor of the learning system, in response to determining the user of the student system is not on the pace defined for the study plan, suggesting a new pace for the study plan to the user of the student system through the student system, receiving an indication of a selection of the new pace for the study plan from the student system, and updating the study plan with the new pace. However, Ghildiyal teaches these limitations ([0069]; [0088], wherein, based on a constant review of the progress of the student against the schedule provided by the study plan, if it is determined that the student is unable to meet the target (not on pace), the system prompts (suggests) the user to modify the study plan by adjusting the pace (e.g., increasing the time committed to study per day and/or revisiting the deadline (date) by which the study plan must be completed, thereby altering the pace), wherein the user communicates with the e-learning server system through a graphical user interface to modify the study plan in the digital learning environment). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to suggest a new pace for the study plan to the user, wherein the user may select a new pace for the study plan and update the study plan accordingly, in response to a determination that the user is not on the pace defined for the study plan, as taught by Ghildiyal, in the invention of Hall, in order to allow the student to complete the curriculum (study plan) while still providing a sense of autonomy to the user (Hall, [0042-0043]; [0045], wherein by allowing the user to ultimately select pacing, the user is allowed to maintain autonomy).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is a system of claim 1 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning (see further, Ghildiyal, Figs. 1-3; [0059]; [0135], further teaching a memory coupled with and readable by the processor).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is a system of claim 2 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is a system of claim 4 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is a system of claim 5 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is a system of claim 6 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is a system of claim 7 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is a non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 1 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning (see further, Ghildiyal, [0140], wherein the processes may be performed by a processor executing software instructions stored by a non-transitory computer-readable medium).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is a non-transitory, computer-readable medium claim 2 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is a non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 4 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is a non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 5 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 20, Hall in view of Ghildiyal further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the processor to adjust the study plan based on the tracking of the results of the study activity and the retrieval activity (Hall, Figs. 1 & 7; [0007]; [0027]; [0030]; [0034]; [0040], wherein the study plan, or sequence of subtopics (study units), is adjusted based on user performance of the study activity and retrieval activity (e.g., flashcards (subtopics) may be reset and re-presented to the user, short-term retention tests retried until 100% accuracy is achieved, and/or long-term test questions may be re-presented to the user until user performance results correct answers on two consecutive occasions)), wherein adjusting the study plan further comprises:
providing a summary of current performance of the user of the student system on the study plan (Hall, Figs. 5-6 & 11; [0005]; [0009]; [0035-0037]; [0062]; [0076-0077]; [0079-0080], wherein the system tracks a number of flashcards viewed and answered correctly, as well as results of the tests (e.g., test questions answered correctly, short-term and long-term tests passed) and displays the results through a dashboard);
determining, based on the current performance of the user of the student system on the study plan, whether the user of the student system is on the pace defined for the study plan (Hall, Fig. 7; [0042-0043]; [0045], wherein the dashboard displaying the current performance of the user is used to determine if the user is on pace).
Hall may not further explicitly disclose based, at least in part on determining whether the user of the student system is on the pace defined for the study plan, suggesting a new pace for the study plan to the user of the student system through the student system; receiving an indication of a user selection made via a user interface regarding the new pace for the study plan suggested from the student system; and updating the study plan with the new pace. However, Ghildiyal teaches these limitations ([0069]; [0088], wherein the system determines whether the user is on pace defined for the study plan, and prompts (suggests) the student to modify the study plan accordingly (e.g., increasing the time committed to study per day and/or revising the deadline (date) by which the study plan must be completed, thereby altering the pace), wherein the user communicates with the e-learning server system through a graphical user interface to modify the study plan in the digital learning environment). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to suggest a new pace for the study plan to the user, wherein the user may select a new pace for the study plan and update the study plan accordingly, in response to a determination whether the user is on the pace defined for the study plan, as taught by Ghildiyal, in the invention of Hall, in order to allow the student to complete the curriculum (study plan) while still providing a sense of autonomy to the user (Hall, [0042-0043]; [0045], wherein by allowing the user to ultimately select pacing, the user is allowed to maintain autonomy).
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of Ghildiyal, as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15, and in further view of Keat et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0201690 A1) (hereinafter “Keat”)).
Regarding claim 3, Hall in view of Ghildiyal further teaches wherein defining the study plan further comprises receiving information defining one or more study goals for the user of the student system (Hall, [0043], wherein, for example, a received predetermined goal may be completion of core grade level material by a user by a given date);
receiving a selection of content for the set of study units (Hall, [0050-0054], wherein the user can select subtopics which comprise content (e.g., flashcards comprising questions); [0087-0088], wherein further, before being presented to the user for selection, a user (e.g., editor) selects content (questions) for the study units (subtopics, e.g., flashcards));
dividing the received selection of content into individual study units of the set of study units (Hall, [0006]; [0050]; [0052], wherein the flashcards/questions (content) are divided by subtopic);
organizing the plurality of study units into an order defined by the study plan (Hall, Fig. 11; [0052-0053], wherein the subtopics (study units) are organized in an order defined by the curriculum/study plan (e.g., introduction and DNA structure, followed by DNA transcription and replication, and so forth));
receiving [] an end date for the specified period of time for the study plan (Hall, [0043]; [0049-0051], wherein a given end date for completion of the material is received); and
calculating a pace for the study plan based on [] the end date for the specified period of time and the plurality of study units in the study plan (Hall, [0043], wherein a pacing guide calculates a pace for completion of core grade level material (subtopics of a study plan) by the given date).
Hall in view of Ghildiyal may not further explicitly teach receiving a start date, and calculating the pace for the study plan based further in part on the start date. However, Keat, directed to a learning management system and generation of a study plan ([0002]; [0026]), teaches these limitations ([0028]; [0077-0078], wherein a targeted study period for learning is allocated and comprises a time period between an input start date and an end date of studying, and wherein a study plan is then generated based on the time needed to complete the study material). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a start date in addition to the end date for a study plan and associated pace in order to more accurately determine a study plan and pace for the user (Hall, [0042], noting that pacing of learning is important, especially for particular students such as Charter School students).
Regarding claim 10, Hall in view of Ghildiyal further teaches wherein defining the study plan further comprises receiving information defining one or more study goals for the user of the student system (Hall, [0043], wherein, for example, a received predetermined goal may be completion of core grade level material by a user by a given date);
receiving a selection of content for the set of study units (Hall, [0050-0054], wherein the user can select subtopics which comprise content (e.g., flashcards comprising questions); [0087-0088], wherein further, before being presented to the user for selection, a user (e.g., editor) selects content (questions) for the study units (subtopics, e.g., flashcards));
dividing the received selection of content into individual study units of the set of study units (Hall, [0006]; [0050]; [0052], wherein the flashcards/questions (content) are divided by subtopic);
organizing the plurality of study units into an order defined by the study plan or the user (Hall, Fig. 11; [0052-0053], wherein the subtopics (study units) are organized in an order defined by the curriculum/study plan (e.g., introduction and DNA structure, followed by DNA transcription and replication, and so forth));
receiving [] an end date for the specified period of time for the study plan (Hall, [0043]; [0049-0051], wherein a given end date for completion of the material is received); and
calculating a pace for the study plan based on [] the end date for the specified period of time and the plurality of study units in the study plan (Hall, [0043], wherein a pacing guide calculates a pace for completion of core grade level material (subtopics of a study plan) by the given date).
Hall in view of Ghildiyal may not further explicitly teach receiving a start date, and calculating the pace for the study plan based further in part on the start date. However, Keat, directed to a learning management system and generation of a study plan ([0002]; [0026]), teaches these limitations ([0028]; [0077-0078], wherein a targeted study period for learning is allocated and comprises a time period between an input start date and an end date of studying, and wherein a study plan is then generated based on the time needed to complete the study material). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a start date in addition to the end date for a study plan and associated pace in order to more accurately determine a study plan and pace for the user (Hall, [0042], noting that pacing of learning is important, especially for particular students such as Charter School students).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is a non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 3 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA N BRANDLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol, can be reached at (571)272-4430. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALYSSA N BRANDLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715