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 Amendment
The amendment filed on August 28, 2025 has been entered. Applicant has amended claims 1, 3 and 5-6. Claims 1-12 are now pending, have been examined and currently stand rejected.
Specification
Specification is objected because in P.15 indicates that there is a Fig. 5 (e.g., The feedback
described herein can be binding and embedded in a smart contract as illustrated by FIG 5 flowchart.). However, in the drawings, there is no Fig. 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. MPEP §2106.
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined as Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter). MPEP §2106.03.
Here, the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (Claims 1-12). Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong 1. MPEP §2106.
Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. MPEP §2106.04. Independent Claim 1 is selected as being representative of the independent claims in the instant application. Claim 1 recites:
A method of governance, the method comprising:
electing one or more elected representatives;
identifying an issue;
voting on the issue by the elected representatives;
sending voting results of the elected representatives to one or more voters;
storing the voting results of the elected representatives on a distributed blockchain:
transmitting the voting results to the one or more voters via a distributed autonomous organization (DAO) using voting tokens;
voting by the one or more voters for one or more elected
representatives, the one or more voters use the following information to determine which of the one or more elected representatives to vote for:
the issue; and
the voting results of the elected representatives;
calculating voting results of the one or more voters for each of the one or more elected representatives, the calculation determining proportional electoral support for each elected representative based on a predefined vote-weighting formula that combines direct votes from the one or more voters with votes allocated to the elected representatives; and
implementing a second result on the issue using the proportional electoral support of each elected representative.
Here, the claims recite an abstract idea, or combination of abstract ideas, using voting results of representatives that voted for an issue and voting results of voters voting for support on these representatives based on their votes for the issue to determine how much support each elected representatives has from the voters. This concept/abstract idea, which is identified in the bolded sections seen above, falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes a commercial or legal interactions (e.g., electing one or more representatives and identifying an issue). Additionally, the claims describes a Mathematical Concepts (e.g., a mathematical calculation when voting and voting results are calculated.)
Accordingly, it is determined that the claims recite an abstract idea since they fall within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter. MPEP §2106.04.
Since it is determined that the claim(s) contain a judicial exception, it must then be determined, under Step 2A, Prong 2, whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception. MPEP §2106.04. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s) are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Here claim 1 recites the additional element of a distributed blockchain. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These additional element is recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, or a portion thereof, using a generic computer component (e.g., database). See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Examiner finds no indication in the Specification, that the operations recited in the independent claims require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, invoke any allegedly inventive programming, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. Furthermore, there is no indication in the claim(s) that the use of a distributed blockchain in combination with the abstract idea leads to an improvement of the processor, memory, another technology, or to a technical field. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Examiner further notes that even though the claims may not preempt all forms of the abstraction, this alone, does not make them any less abstract.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic computing component i.e., blockchain (e.g., a database) to implement the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the judicial exception. Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements recited in the claim(s) add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 and are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-12 when analyzed are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 2 further refine the abstract idea by indicating how is implemented the process of voting on the issue by the elected representatives. This claim fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 further refine the abstract idea by describing how the issue is identified. This claim fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 further refine the abstract idea by describing how the voting results are summarized. This claim fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 further refine the abstract idea by indicating that information of the voted issued are sent to the voters. This claim fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6-7 further refine the abstract idea by describing some data (e.g., a voting token) is stored and further describing where it is stored. These claims fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8-9 further refine the abstract idea by indicating that data (e.g., voting results, issue) is stored immutably in a blockchain. These claims fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10-12 further refine the abstract idea by describing how voting results are calculated (e.g., using artificial intelligence algorithm). The artificial intelligence algorithm is recited at a high level (e.g., being used to calculate). Therefore, these claims fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Accordingly, it is determined that all claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are ineligible.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over South (US 2021/0065313 A1) in view of Apollo, (US 2022/0398666 A1), in view of Cohen (US 2010/0145715 A1).
Regarding claim 1: South disclose; A method of governance, the method comprising:
identifying an issue; (See at least South, Fig. 4; [0031-0032]; [0036] where an issue (i.e., issues extracted) are identified.)
voting on the issue by the elected representatives; (See at least South, [0037]; [0039]; 0041] where the elected representatives (i.e., political figures) vote on the issue (i.e., voting records).)
sending the voting results of the elected representatives to one or more voters; (See at least South, [0038-0041]; [0067-0070] where the voting results (i.e., weighted voting record) of the elected representatives are sent to one or more voters (i.e., are displayed in “User interface”).)
implementing a second result on the issue using the proportional electoral support of each elected representative. (See at least South, [0039] weighted issue score).
South disclose the use of databases including a distributed database. (See at least South, [0027]. However, South does not explicitly disclose storing the voting results of the elected representatives on a distributed blockchain: transmitting the voting results to the one or more voters via a distributed autonomous organization {DAO) using voting tokens.
Apollo, on the other hand teaches storing the voting results of the elected representatives on a distributed blockchain: transmitting the voting results to the one or more voters via a distributed autonomous organization (DAO) using voting tokens. (See at least Apollo, Abs., [0011]; [0029]; [0040]; The DAO can be associated with a set of voting share tokens that can be provided to the investors according to their contributions to the DAO. Systems and methods for creating and managing decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) using distributed ledgers are provided.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the above combination and include Apollo’s teachings in order to provide a tamper-resistant governance method.
The combination of South and Apollo disclose voting on the issue by the elected representatives and sending/displaying voting results. South further disclose South disclose a political figure weighed voting record; the weighted voting and record for the issue is displayed for a political figure South, [0037-0044]; [0067-0070].
The combination does not explicitly disclose; however, Cohen teaches;
electing one or more elected representatives voting by the one or more voters for one or more elected representatives, the one or more voters use the following information to determine which of the one or more elected representatives to vote for: the issue; and the voting results of the elected representatives; calculating voting results of the one or more voters for each of the one or more elected representatives, determining proportional electoral support for each elected representative based on a predefined vote-weighting formula that combines direct votes from the one or more voters with votes allocated to the elected representatives; (See at least Cohan, [0181-0182]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate voter selection and calculation of proportional electoral support, as taught by Cohen, into the governance system of the above combination. South already discloses identifying issues, voting by elected representatives and sending/presenting results to voters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include that the voters can select representatives based on calculated issue-based voting results into South with the predicted result of having a responsive governance method.
Regarding claim 2: The combination of South, Apollo and Cohen disclose the method of method of claim 1. The combination further disclose wherein voting on the issue by the elected representatives further comprises summarizing the voting results of the elected representatives before sending the voting results of the elected representatives to one or more voters. (See at least South, [0038-0041]; [0067-0069]. E.g., when number of issues, political figure stance and the vote records by the political figured are presented on a table.)
Regarding claim 4: The combination of South, Apollo and Cohen disclose the method of method of claim 2. The combination further disclose wherein summarizing the voting results of the elected representatives is performed by an administrative support staff. (See at least South, [0068] The detailed description 974 can be written directly by the political figure or their staff, or it may be pulled from social media posts, news articles, or other information sources.)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over South, Apollo and Cohen as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Strausfeld (US 2013/0173354 A1)
Regarding claim 3: The combination of South, Apollo and Cohen disclose the method of method of claim 2. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein identifying the issue that requires direct input from the one or more voters is performed using predefined criteria in constitution of a governance organization.
Strausfeld, on the other hand teaches wherein identifying the issue that requires direct input from the one or more voters is performed using predefined criteria in constitution of a governance organization. (See at least Strausfeld, [0008-0009] The data processing system, referred to herein as the Major League Politics (MLP) system, uses information provided by various interest groups that grade or 'score' individual members of Congress with respect to various political issues.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the issue based voting system of the above combination, identifying the issues using a constitution of a governance organization as taught by Strausfeld since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over South, Apollo and Cohen as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sealy (US 2024/0265762 A1), in view of Demarinis (US 20170330174 A1).
Regarding claim 5: The combination of South, Apollo and Cohen disclose the method of claim 2. However, the combination does not specifically wherein the summary of the issues voting results of the elected representatives sent to the one or more voters is sent to a voting token wallet associated with each of the one or more voters, the voting token wallet storing a voting token used by each voter to cast their vote.
Sealy, on the other hand teaches wherein the summary of the issues voting results of the elected representatives sent to the one or more voters is sent to a voting token wallet associated with each of the one or more voters. (See at least Sealy, Fig. 7B, Fig. 7C; [0094] The voter selects the election upon which the voter intends to cast a ballot, and one or more vote pages appear on the voter's device. FIG. 7C depicts an exemplary set of candidates for voting, as well as a bit of information about the vote, in this example the elective office involved and the party of the candidate. If the voter wants more information, the voter can click a "?" image and the wallet app will bring up additional information. FIG. 7D depicts an image of an explanation for a legislative or voter initiative, permitting the voter to review what this particular vote entails.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Sealy’s teachings in order to provide to the user an opportunity to cast a vote in an informative and convenient way.
The combination of South, Apollo, Cohen and Sealy does not explicitly disclose the use of a voting token in a wallet.
Demarinis, on the other hand teaches the voting token wallet storing a voting token used by each voter to cast their vote. (See at least Demarinis, [0008]; [0094]; [0107]. User wallet 610 also includes vote token X 620 and vote token Y 622 areas for security A, representing voting tokens to be used for agenda items X and Y respectively. Vote token 620 and 622 each also include a blockchain address to which vote transactions are addressed, and the number of vote tokens.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Demarinis’ teachings in order to simplify user interaction with the DAO.
Regarding claim 6: The combination of South, Apollo, Cohen, Sealy and Demarinis disclose the method of claim 5. The combination further disclose wherein the voting token is stored by a distributed autonomous organization (DAO).
Apollo, on the other hand teaches wherein the voting token is stored by a (DAO). (See at least Apollo, [0005] a vote indicates a response to the proposal and includes one or more voting share tokens of the set of voting share tokens. The computer-implemented method further comprises processing the votes associated with the proposal to determine whether the proposal is approved. Processing the votes includes evaluating voting share tokens submitted with the votes and corresponding responses to the proposal. The computer-implemented method further comprises, as a result of the votes indicating that the proposal is approved, disbursing the funds from the DAO for the creation of the one or more digital objects. The funds are disbursed by the smart contract from a digital wallet associated with the DAO.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the above combination and include Apollo’s teachings in order to provide a tamper-resistant governance method.
Regarding claim 7: The combination of South, Apollo, Cohen, Sealy and Demarinis disclose the method of claim 6. The combination further disclose wherein the DAO embeds one or more smart contracts. (See at least Apollo, [0035] Further, the smart contract 112 can generate, or mint, voting share tokens 114 that may be issued to the various investors 104, 106 of the DAO.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the above combination and include Apollo’s teachings in order to provide a tamper-resistant governance method that is verifiable and decentralized.
Regarding claim 8: The combination of South, Apollo, Cohen, Sealy and Demarinis disclose the method of claim 6. The combination further disclose wherein the issue and the voting result by the elected representatives and the calculated voting results of the one or more voters and the second result on the issue are stored on a blockchain. (See at least Sealy, [0078] The election content itself is not stored on the blockchain, only the content digest.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination that sends voting-related content and include Sealy’s teachings that integrates blockchain technology though digital wallets to a voting system in order to prove secure delivery voting data to users.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over South, Apollo and Cohen as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sealy (US 2024/0265762 A1).
Regarding claim 9: The combination of South, Apollo and Cohen disclose the method of claim 2. However, the combination does not specifically disclose; wherein the issue and the voting result by the elected representatives and the calculated voting results of the one or more voters and the second result on the issue are stored immutably.
Sealy, on the other hand teaches wherein the issue and the voting result by the elected representatives and the calculated voting results of the one or more voters and the second result on the issue are stored immutably. (See at least Sealy, [0086]; [0096]; [0099]; [0107] In any event, queries into the tally result are typically made with an inquiry to the blockchain, the inquiry containing the election public key. The blockchain application examines the casting transaction and, if valid, modifies the application state to record that the ballot has been cast by the voter, and either increments the vote selection tallies directly in the application state for unencrypted voter selections, or appends the encrypted voter selections to a list of encrypted selections to be decrypted later. At the time the voter makes selections and casts the ballot, a legitimate request is sent to the anonymizer service to forward the casting transaction to the blockchain.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination that sends voting-related content and include Sealy’s teachings that integrates blockchain technology though digital wallets, smart contracts to a voting system in order to prove secure delivery voting data to users.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over South, Apollo and Cohen as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Greenfield (US 20190130424 A1)
Regarding claim 10: The combination of South, Apollo and Cohen disclose the method of claim 2. However the combination does not explicitly disclose comprising verifying the calculated voting results of the one or more voters for each of the one or more elected representatives is performed using sentiment analysis.
Greenfield, on the other hand teaches verifying the calculated voting results of the one or more voters for each of the one or more elected representatives is performed using sentiment analysis. (See at least Greenfield, [0021]; [0087]; Sentiment measurement, or analysis: Refers to the
aggregate opinion of voters who responded to the poll on a given issue.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the above combination and include Greenfield in order to o help specific legislators understand how their votes would influence voters. Greenfield [0101].
Regarding claim 11: The combination of South, Apollo, Cohen and Greenfield disclose the method of claim 10. The combination further disclose wherein sentiment analysis is performed using an artificial intelligence (Al) algorithm. (See at least Greenfield, [0021]; [0087]; Sentiment measurement, or analysis: Refers to the aggregate opinion of voters who responded to the poll on a given issue.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the above combination and include Greenfield in order to o help specific legislators understand how their votes would influence voters. Greenfield [0101].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over South, Apollo, Cohen and Greenfield as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Bravi, (US 20220135027 A1).
Regarding claim 12: The combination of South, Apollo, Cohen and Greenfield disclose the method of claim 11. However, the combination does not specifically disclose wherein the Al algorithm provides data that is used to overturn the second result of the one or more voters.
Bravi, on the other hand teaches wherein the Al algorithm provides data that is used to overturn the second result of the one or more voters. (See at least Bravi, [0041] In some implementations, the vehicle environment monitoring device and/or vehicle management system may retrain the machine learning model by updating the historical data to include validated or invalidated results associated with input values of the one or more classification parameters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the above combination and include Bravi’s teachings in order to improve accuracy.
Response to Arguments
Drawings
Applicant’s submission of the corrected drawing sheets of Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 are acknowledged. The corrected drawing sheets are now legible; accordingly, the Drawings objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Applicant’s amendments has corrected the previously identified issues with respect to the rejections under 112(b) to claims 1-3 and 5-6. Accordingly, the claims rejections under 112(b) are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant's arguments filed August 28, 2025 with respect to the 101 (See Remarks, pp. 7-8) rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant asserts “that blockchains maintained and linked across computers or a network and distributed autonomous organizations (DAOs) implemented using blockchain tools and smart phones in not abstract ideas and accordingly requests the amended claim 1 complies with 35 USC 101…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not include smart phones. Claim 1, uses the blockchain to store voting results, e.g., transmitting data. Furthermore, the distributed autonomous organization (DAO) is used for transmitting voting results. Examiner notes that these additional elements are used to perform the abstract idea or a portion thereof.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant's arguments filed August 28, 2025 with respect to the 103 (See Remarks, pp. 8-11) rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness 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).
Applicant argues that that none of South or Cohen teach, or even suggest a hybrid governance model and specifically not a hybrid governance model combining representative and direct democracy. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 is unpatentable over South, Cohen and Apollo.
Regarding claims 5 and 9, Applicant respectfully submits that Byun does not cure the defects of South and Cohen and that none of South in view Cohen and further view of Byun teach, or even suggest a hybrid governance model and specifically not a hybrid governance model combining representative and direct democracy. This argument is unpersuasive. Claims 5 and 9 indicates that voting results are stored in voter wallet and that voting results are stored immutably, respectively. Claim 5 is rejected over South, Apollo, Cohen, Sealy and Demarinis and claim 9 is rejected over South, Apollo, Cohen and Sealy.
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 KARLYANNIE M GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 4:30-pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/K.G.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698