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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe (EP) on 11/13/2020, and 05/19/2021.
Status of Application
Claims 1-8, 11-13, 15, 17-21, and 23, are pending.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 19-20, are amended.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 9-10, 14, 16, 22, and 24-25, are cancelled.
No claims are added.
Claim 1 is independent claim.
Claims 1-8, 11-13, 15, 17-21, and 23, will be examined.
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the “ Arguments/Remarks” and “Claims” dated 12/29/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments and amended claims, filed 12/29/2025, with respect to claims 1-8, 11-13, 15, 17-21, and 23, have been fully considered and Applicant' s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the applicant’s response and amended claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Regarding applicant's remarks against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, and the remarks, “Office Action's assertion treats "harmful fungal organisms" as a stand-alone concept untethered from the sampling and analysis steps, relying on general background references to fungi without identifying any disclosure in which a harmful fungal organism is actually the sampled organism subjected to genetic analysis, let alone analysis performed by a portable in-field device. the Office respectfully disagrees. Regarding applicant's remarks against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is the combination of Khait, Hyde, and Peters, which disclose all elements of claim 1.
Prior art Khait discloses throughout the paragraphs and claim 102, “controlling fungus,” which is “harmful fungal organism.” Furthermore, prior art Peters discloses/teaches “harmful fungal organism is actually the sampled organism subjected to genetic analysis” within paragraph [0011], stating “disease or pest pressure of a field with the aid of 1) scouting in the field, 2) sampling and analysis methods (e.g. counting of spores, genetic analysis in the laboratory to identify and/or quantify the fungus), wherein the harmful disease of Peters is the “harmful fungal organism” and “scouting in the field” of Peters is the “sampled organism subjected to genetic analysis.” Furthermore, regarding Applicants claim “using a portable device operated in the agricultural field,” prior art Hyde teaches “using a portable device operated in the agricultural field,” clearly stating, “ device 160 may be components of a handheld or portable device (e.g., a smart phone, tablet, laptop computer, etc.). A portable device allows the user to make changes or review the performance of the system from the field or remotely.”
Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant' s arguments.
It remains the Offices stance that the combination of cited prior art anticipates or renders obvious this claimed subject matter.
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 1-8, 10-13, 15, 17, 18-19, 21, and 23, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KHAIT et al., US 20230039763, herein further known as Khait, in view of HYDE et al., US 9510586, herein further known as Hyde, further in view of PETERS et al., US 20190174739, herein further known as Peters.
Regarding claim 1, Khait discloses a computer-implemented method (¶ [0142]) for determining at least one treatment parameter selected from the group consisting of: a) at least one time window for a treatment parameter (¶¶ [0064], [0083], [0098-0100], selective treatment in real time) in an agricultural field (¶¶ [0104-0105], [0119], see also FIG. 14), b) at least one method for a treatment parameter (¶¶ [0039-0041], [0108], [0168-0170], spot spraying), in an agricultural field (¶¶ [0104-0105], [0119], see also FIG. 14), c) at least one product for a treatment parameter (¶ [0320], applying agricultural product or treatment) in an agricultural field (¶¶ [0104-0105], [0119], see also FIG. 14), d) at least one dose rate for a treatment parameter (¶ [0320], variable rate application) in an agricultural field (¶¶ [0104-0105], [0119], see also FIG. 14), and e) at least one application map for conducting a zone-specific treatment (¶¶ [0028-0032], regulatory region) in an agricultural field (¶¶ [0104-0105], [0119], see also FIG. 14), the method comprising: initiating taking at least one sample (¶¶ [0010], [0416]) of at least one organism which existed or is existing or is expected to exist (¶¶ [0100], [0287]), in the agricultural field (¶¶ [0104-0105], [0119], see also FIG. 14), conducting genetic analysis using the at least one sample of the at least one organism (¶¶ [0010], [0175], [0218-0220]), obtaining therefrom genetic information of the at least one organism (¶¶ [0068-0069], [0085], [0098-0099], [0171] reporter genes, [0162], plant genes, [0216-0218], [0287-0290]), wherein the genetic analysis is based on at least one of the technologies selected from the group consisting of nanopore technology, microarray technology, graphene biosensor technology, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology, fast PCR technology, and other DNA/RNA amplification technologies (¶¶ [0029], [0206], [0225]): receiving the genetic information (¶¶ [0022-0024], phenotype, [0127], genetic background) (¶¶ [0068-0069], [0085], [0098-0099], [0171] reporter genes, [0162], plant genes, [0216-0218], [0287-0290]) of the at least one organism which existed or is existing or is expected to exist (¶ [0198]) (¶¶ [0100], [0287], bio-sensing) in the agricultural field (¶¶ [0104-0105], [0119], see also FIG. 14); at least based on the genetic information of the at least one organism (¶¶ [0068-0069], [0085], [0098-0099], [0171] reporter genes, [0162], plant genes, [0216-0218], [0287-0290]), initiating and/or performing data processing (¶ [0101]) in at least one database and/or database system (¶ [0261]) containing (i) genetic information data (¶¶ [0261], [0287]), and (ii) data related to the at least one treatment parameter (¶ [0287]); and(¶ [0287], execute treatment), and harmful fungal organisms (¶¶ [0040], [0212], [0295], crop protection treatments, controlling fungus (i.e. harmful fungal organisms).
However, Khait does not explicitly state genetic analysis using the at least one sample, wherein the at least one organism is selected from harmful fungal organisms.
Hyde teaches genetic analysis using the at least one sample (column 13, line 65- column 14, line 20, genetic marker… results of analysis on a sample, column 16, lines 55-65).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate in to Khait the genetic analysis using the at least one sample as taught by Hyde. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Khait, and Hyde.
One would be motivated to modify Khait in view of Hyde for the reasons stated in Hyde column 2, lines 20-25, a more robust system and method detecting and identifying plants of a particular type growing within a field or other predetermined region which may need to be prevented from spreading beyond the field or other predetermined region, or from intermixing with or contaminating plants outside of the field or predetermined region.
Furthermore, Hyde teaches genetic analysis based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology (column 16, line 40 through column 17, line 27, gene pattern… detected by appropriate biological or biochemical analysis (e.g., polymerase chain reaction).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate in to Khait the genetic analysis based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology as taught by Hyde. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Khait, and Hyde.
One would be motivated to modify Khait in view of Hyde for the reasons stated in Hyde column 2, lines 20-25, a more robust system and method detecting and identifying plants of a particular type growing within a field or other predetermined region which may need to be prevented from spreading beyond the field or other predetermined region, or from intermixing with or contaminating plants outside of the field or predetermined region.
Furthermore, Peters teaches at least one organism is selected (¶ [0011], identify and/or quantify the fungus) from harmful fungal organisms (¶¶ [0011], [0062], [0105]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Khait the at least one organism is selected from harmful fungal organisms as taught by Peters.
One would be motivated to modify Khait in view of Peters for the reasons stated in Peters paragraph [0001-0004], more robust methods and systems to control of harmful organisms with predictive models on the risk of a pest or disease infestation using systems which are rule-based or heuristic in combination with process-based calculations to establish treatment recommendations on the time of treatment and plant protection agents which are field-specific, but not subarea specific.
Furthermore, Khait discloses further genetic analysis (¶¶ [0204], [0225], [0231]) of the at least one organism (¶¶ [0261], [0287])
However, Khait does not explicitly state using a portable device operated in the agricultural field.
Hyde teaches using a portable device operated in the agricultural field (column 7, lines 15-17).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate in to Khait using a portable device operated in the agricultural field as taught by Hyde. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Khait, and Hyde.
One would be motivated to modify Khait in view of Hyde for the reasons stated in Hyde column 2, lines 20-25, a more robust system and method detecting and identifying plants of a particular type growing within a field or other predetermined region which may need to be prevented from spreading beyond the field or other predetermined region, or from intermixing with or contaminating plants outside of the field or predetermined region.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Khait, Hyde, and Peters, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Khait discloses further receiving genetic information (¶¶ [0022-0024], phenotype, [0127], genetic background) (¶¶ [0068-0069], [0085], [0098-0099], [0171] reporter genes, [0162], plant genes, [0216-0218], [0287-0290]) of at least one organism (¶ [0198]) which existed or is existing or is expected to exist in the agricultural field (¶¶ [0100], [0287], bio-sensing) (¶¶ [0104-0105], [0119], see also FIG. 14) includes: (A) agricultural crop data comprising (aa) information about an agricultural crop species grown, sown, planned to be grown, or planned to be sown in the agricultural field (¶ [0042]) (¶¶ [0104-0105]), and/or (bb) information about a growth stage of such agricultural crop (¶ [0036]) (¶¶ [0104-0105]), or (B) weather and/or geographical data relating to a location of the agricultural field (¶ [0320]) (¶¶ [0104-0105]), or (C) historic treatment data relating to treatments conducted in the agricultural field historically (¶ [0074], monitored (requires past observation) and treated (past tense), (¶ [0197], predetermined plant treatment (requires previous plant data to determine treatment), at least based on the genetic information of the at least one organism (¶¶ [0068-0069], [0085], [0098-0099], [0171] reporter genes, [0162], plant genes, [0216-0218], [0287-0290]) and based on the agricultural crop data or the weather and/or geographical data or the historic treatment data ¶ [0042]) (¶ [0036]), initiating and/or performing data processing (¶ [0101]) in at least one database and/or database system (¶ [0261]) containing: (i) genetic information data (¶¶ [0261], [0287]), (ii) data related to the at least one treatment parameter (¶ [0287]), and (iii) data related to agricultural crop data, or data related to weather and/or geographical data, or data related to historic treatment data (¶ [0042]) (¶ [0036]) (¶ [0320]) (¶ [0074]) (¶ [0197]); and outputting the at least one treatment parameter based on the result of the data processing (¶ [0287], execute treatment, ¶ [0101]).
Regarding claim 3, all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claims 1 and 2. The method/steps taught/disclosed in claim 3 can clearly perform the same as the method of claims 1 and 2. Therefore, claim 3 is rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and 2 above.
Regarding claim 4, all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claims 1 and 2. The method/steps taught/disclosed in claim 4 can clearly perform the same as the method of claims 1 and 2. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and 2 above.
Regarding claim 5, all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claims 1 and 2. The method/steps taught/disclosed in claim 5 can clearly perform the same as the method of claims 1 and 2. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and 2 above.
Regarding claim 6, all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claims 1 and 2. The method/steps taught/disclosed in claim 6 can clearly perform the same as the method of claims 1 and 2. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and 2 above.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Khait, Hyde, and Peters, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Khait discloses further treatment parameter (¶¶ [0064], [0083], [0098-0100]), (¶¶ [0039-0041], [0108], [0168-0170]), (¶ [0320], applying agricultural product or treatment), (¶ [0320], variable rate application) is to be outputted as a control signal (¶ [0064]) for an agricultural equipment (¶ [0112], see also FIG. 7A-D).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Khait, Hyde, and Peters, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Khait discloses further taking at least one sample (¶¶ [0010], [0416]) of the at least one organism which existed or is existing or is expected to exist (¶¶ [0100], [0287]) in the agricultural field (¶¶ [0104-0105]), conducting analysis (¶ [0258]) of the at least one organism, and obtaining therefrom the genetic information of the at least one organism (¶¶ [0100], [0287]).
However, Khait does not explicitly state genetic analysis using the at least one sample
Hyde teaches genetic analysis using the at least one sample (column 13, line 65- column 14, line 20, genetic markers… results of analysis on a sample, AND column 16, lines 55-65).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate in to Khait the genetic analysis using the at least one sample as taught by Hyde. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Khait, and Hyde.
One would be motivated to modify Khait in view of Hyde for the reasons stated in Hyde column 2, lines 20-25, a more robust system and method detecting and identifying plants of a particular type growing within a field or other predetermined region which may need to be prevented from spreading beyond the field or other predetermined region, or from intermixing with or contaminating plants outside of the field or predetermined region.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Khait, Hyde, and Peters, disclose all elements of claim 8 above.
Khait discloses further wherein the method is carried out in a real-time mode (¶¶ [0083-0091]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Khait, Hyde, and Peters, disclose all elements of claim 8 above.
Khait discloses further wherein the method is carried out in less than two minutes (¶¶ [0083-0091] wherein real time is less than two minutes).
Furthermore, Khait discloses the claimed invention except for “less than two minutes”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to carry out the steps in less than two minutes, since applicant has not disclosed that carrying out the steps in less than two minutes solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well carrying out the steps real-time mode.
Regarding claim 13, all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claims 7 and 12. The method/steps taught/disclosed in claim 13 can clearly perform the same as the method of claims 7 and 12. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claims 7 and 12 above.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Khait, Hyde, and Peters, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Khait discloses further a harmful organism selected from the group consisting of: weeds (¶ [0030], undesirable plants), fungi, viruses, viroids, bacteria, insects, arachnids, nematodes, mollusks, birds, and rodents (¶ [0040], controlling fungus, bacteria, virus, nematode, insects, parasitic plants and weeds, [0082], treatment of a pathogen); or a beneficial organism selected from the group consisting of: beneficial plants, fungi, viruses, viroids, bacteria, insects (¶ [0030], transformation by microorganisms or insects), arachnids, nematodes, mollusks, birds, rodents, and protozoa.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Khait, Hyde, and Peters, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Khait discloses further at least one organism is an agricultural crop species grown, sown, planned to be grown, or planned to be sown (¶¶ [0128-0130], [0240]) in the agricultural field (¶¶ [0104-0105]).
Regarding claim 18, all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claims 1-11. The method/steps taught/disclosed in claim 18 can clearly perform the same as the method of claims 1-11. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-11 above.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Khait, Hyde, and Peters, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Khait discloses further genetic information data contains organism response data and wherein the data processing (¶ [0101]) includes the determination of a type of response of the at least one organism based on the organism response data (¶¶ [0180], [0218]).
Regarding claim 21, all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 1. The data processing system comprising one or more processors taught/disclosed in claim 21 can clearly perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 23, all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 1. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer taught/disclosed in claim 23 can clearly perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Khait, Hyde, and Peters, in view of AL-DILAIMI et al., US 20210035473, herein further known as Al-Dilaimi.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Khait, Hyde, and Peters, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Khait discloses genetic information data contains organism response data (¶¶ [0180], [0218]) wherein the data processing (¶ [0101]) includes the determination of the type of response of the at least one organism based on the organism response data (¶¶ [0180], [0218]).
However, Khait does not explicitly state the type of the response of the at least one organism is: (1) target-site resistance of the at least one organism to the treatment with specific treatment parameters genetic information data contains organism response data and wherein the data processing includes the determination of a type of response of the at least one organism based on the organism response data, and wherein the type of the response of the at least one organism is: (2) non-target-site resistance of the at least one organism to the treatment with specific treatment parameters, preferably methods or products, or (3) response of the at least one organism to the treatment with specific treatment parameters: a) organism nutrition deficiencies, for example plant nutrition deficiencies, b) heat stress, for example temperature conditions higher than 30°C, c) cold stress, for example temperature conditions lower than l0°C, d) drought stress, e) water stress, for example existence of excessive water, e.g. after heavy rains or floods, f) exposure to excessive sun light, for example exposure to sun light causing signs of scorch, sun burn or similar signs of irradiation, g) acidic or alkaline pH conditions in the soil with pH values lower than pH 5 and/or pH values higher than 9, h) salt stress, for example soil salinity, i) pollution with chemicals, for example with heavy metals, and/or j) destructive weather conditions, for example hail, frost, damaging wind.
Al-Dilaimi teaches the type of the response of the at least one organism is: (1) target-site resistance (¶ [0051]) of the at least one organism to the treatment with specific treatment parameters genetic information data contains organism response data and wherein the data processing includes the determination of the type of response of the at least one organism based on the organism response data, and wherein the type of the response of the at least one organism is: (2) non-target-site resistance (¶ [0051]) of the at least one organism to the treatment with specific treatment parameters, preferably methods or products, or (3) response of the at least one organism to the treatment with specific treatment parameters: a) organism nutrition deficiencies (¶ [0067], administration of nutrients), for example plant nutrition deficiencies, b) heat stress (¶ [0067], minimum and/or maximum temperatures), for example temperature conditions higher than 30°C, c) cold stress (¶ [0067], minimum and/or maximum temperatures), for example temperature conditions lower than l 0°C, d) drought stress, e) water stress, for example existence of excessive water, e.g. after heavy rains or floods, (¶ [0067], digital resistance maps, water level) f) exposure to excessive sun light, for example exposure to sun light causing signs of scorch, sun burn or similar signs of irradiation, g) acidic or alkaline pH conditions in soil with pH values lower than pH 5 and/or pH values higher than 9, h) salt stress, for example soil salinity, i) pollution with chemicals, for example with heavy metals, and/or j) destructive weather conditions, for example hail, frost, damaging wind (¶ [0067], wind directions and wind forces).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate in to Khait the type of the response of the at least one organism is: (1) target-site resistance of the at least one organism to the treatment with specific treatment parameters genetic information data contains organism response data and wherein the data processing includes the determination of the type of response of the at least one organism based on the organism response data, and wherein the type of the response of the at least one organism is: (2) non-target-site resistance of the at least one organism to the treatment with specific treatment parameters, preferably methods or products, or (3) response of the at least one organism to the treatment with specific treatment parameters: a) organism nutrition deficiencies, for example plant nutrition deficiencies, b) heat stress, for example temperature conditions higher than 30°C, c) cold stress, for example temperature conditions lower than l0°C, d) drought stress, e) water stress, for example existence of excessive water, e.g. after heavy rains or floods, f) exposure to excessive sun light, for example exposure to sun light causing signs of scorch, sun burn or similar signs of irradiation, g) acidic or alkaline pH conditions in the soil with pH values lower than pH 5 and/or pH values higher than 9, h) salt stress, for example soil salinity, i) pollution with chemicals, for example with heavy metals, and/or j) destructive weather conditions, for example hail, frost, damaging wind. as taught by Al-Dilaimi. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Khait, and Al-Dilaimi.
One would be motivated to modify Khait in view of Al-Dilaimi for the reasons stated in Al-Dilaimi paragraph [0006], a more robust method to reduce regulatory and logistical barriers from preventing prompt identification of resistances and resistance mechanisms and control resistances to prevent the spread of resistant harmful organisms, and be able to recognize them at an early stage and monitor their spread.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record attached PTO 892 form, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as described below. Prior art Levin et al., US 20220091029, discloses a mobile device utilized at the point of use such as agricultural environments, wherein a user may receive results in an efficient manner and any care or remedial measure decisions may be implemented immediately within agricultural environment. The system provides a technical advancement in the fight to diagnose and track pathogens (i.e. fungi) that may give rise to crop damage or pathogen in an agricultural environment. The systems provide a means to indicate and otherwise aid in the control of disease surveillance, and invasive species of pathogen.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Terry Buse whose telephone number is (313)446-6647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PM EST.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/TERRY C BUSE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666