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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for Foreign Priority to Application No. EP20217989.1 filed on the December 31, 2020.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, lines 4 and 6 “a subject” should read as –the subject—
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 13 and its dependencies claims 2-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim recite a system two of the statutory categories; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis. For step 2A, the claim(s) are directed to a system for generating a non-linear model of the airway of a sleeping subject. The claims recite an abstract idea in the form of determining a movement pattern from detected movement of the chest or abdomen of the subject; determining an airflow pattern from detected airflow in the airway of the subject; modifying the airway model based on the movement pattern and the airflow pattern so as to generate a subject-specific piecewise linearized non-linear airway model for the subject representing respiratory airflow in the airway of the subject in a sleep state. This represents a mental processes because it can equivalently be done by a person simply observing the output of a signals from the sensors on a user and then changing the “model” based on those signals are actions that a person could do purely in the mind. If a claim recites a limitation, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Using Claim 1 and 13 as a representative example that is applicable to claims 2-11, 14-15, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
Claim 1:
A system (300) for generating a non-linear model of the airway of a sleeping subject, the system comprising:
an interface (310) adapted to obtain an airway model configured to represent respiratory airflow in the airway of a subject;
a movement sensor arrangement (330) configured to detect movement of the chest or abdomen of a subject;
an airflow sensor arrangement (340) configured to detect an airflow in the airway of the subject;
and a processor arrangement (320) configured to:
determine a movement pattern from detected movement of the chest or abdomen of the subject;
determine an airflow pattern from detected airflow in the airway of the subject;
modify the airway model based on the movement pattern and the airflow pattern so as to generate a subject-specific piecewise linearized non-linear airway model for the subject representing respiratory airflow in the airway of the subject in a sleep state.
Claim 13:
A method for generating a non-linear model of the airway of a sleeping subject, the method comprising:
obtaining (510) an airway model configured to represent respiratory airflow in the airway of a subject;
detecting (520) movement of the chest or abdomen of a subject;
detecting (530) an airflow in the airway of the subject;
determining (522) a movement pattern from detected movement of the chest or abdomen of the subject;
determining (532) an airflow pattern from detected airflow in the airway of the subject;
modifying (540) the airway model based on the movement pattern and the airflow pattern so as to generate (550) a subject-specific piecewise linearized non-linear airway model for the subject representing respiratory airflow in the airway of the subject in a sleep state.
The above bolded limitations recite a system for generating a non-linear model of the airway of a sleeping subject by determining a movement pattern and airflow pattern and then the processor arrangement modifies the airway model based on the movement pattern and the airflow pattern so as to generate a subject-specific piecewise linearized non-linear airway model for the subject representing respiratory airflow in the airway of the subject in a sleep state, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The process of determining movement and airflow patterns and then modifying the airway model based on the different patterns to generate a subject-specific piecewise linearized non-linear airway model for the subject can be carried out in a person’s mind. This is further defining the abstract idea.
Furthermore, this is a process known to be capable of being performed by people mentally, and not limited to be carried out via computer for automation. People (patients or doctor or caregivers) are capable of determining and detecting different parameters—movement patterns and airflow patterns—and the modifying a model to generate a certain piecewise linearized non-linear airway model through observations. This is further defining mental process in the form of observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.
Looking at signals from both the movement and airflow sensors and the modifying a model because of these parameters can be done manually. This is considered longstanding practice that is the focus of the (patent ineligible) claimed invention and is further defining the abstract idea. The mere nominal recitation of “movement sensor arrangement”, “airflow sensor arrangement”, “processor arrangement” and “interface,” does not take the claim out of the group of mental processes.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim amount to the use of “movement sensor arrangement” which is used for extra solution data gathering and high-level of generality as stated in US 20150289785 A1 (para. 0022) and US 20090259135 A1 (para. 0003). Additionally, the use of “airflow sensor arrangement,” is also used for extra solution data gathering and high-level of generality as stated in US 20030106554 A1 (para. 0024). A “system”, “airway model” or “interface” are field of use and/or extra solution activity these are merely being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the use of “processor arrangement” has limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application because they are being recited at a high-level of generality as shown in US 20170182267 A1 (para. 0148) (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of communicating data between users) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
A “airway model” is field of use and/or extra solution activity that is also recited in Claim 13, are all considered nothing more than a general link to a technological environment and generic computing devices to perform generic communicating functions such as storing data and instructions, transmitting and receiving data between computers; The "processor" – that is used to modify the airway model— is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of communicating data between users) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; for example, the additional elements are directed to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the independent claim(s) Claims 1 and 13 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a computer to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a computer without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea. The rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above is also applicable to the entirety of the claims. The processor and control device are generic computer systems and the ventilation system and breathing apparatus are drawn to a field of use.
Likewise, the rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above for claim 1 is also applicable to Claim 2-11, 14-15.
In regards to Claims 2, the applicant is reciting elements that further limit the claims to include wherein at least one of the detected movement and detected airflow is responsive to a stimulation by an incremental maneuver, and wherein the processor arrangement is configured to determine a piecewise linearization of a nonlinear element of the airway model based on the incremental maneuver. This is further defining the abstract idea identified by the examiner. No new additional elements were introduced in these claims, therefore, the same rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above for claim 1 can be applied to the following claims. Examiner further considers these claim limitations as pre-solution activity because it is collecting the reference data that is used to make the abstract determination and data gathering is indicative of not amounting to significantly more when considered as a whole. See MPEP2106(g).
In regards to Claims 3-6, the claim recites a new additional element of “a circuit arrangement”, “passive circuit element” “active circuit element” which is used for extra solution data gathering and routine and conventional as stated page 8 lines 20-23 of specification, applicant mention that examples of circuitry that may be employed in various embodiments of the present disclosure include, but are not limited to, conventional microprocessors, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), and field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs). Also, the applicant is reciting elements that further limit the claims to include wherein the airway model comprises a circuit arrangement configured to represent the airway of a subject, and wherein the circuit arrangement comprises: one or more passive circuit elements, each passive circuit element being configured to represent a respective anatomical structure of the airway; and one or more active circuit elements each active circuit element being configured to represent a respective driving force for airflow in the airway; determining a value of airway tissue compliance, a value of respiration drive based, OR a value of airflow based on at least one of the movement pattern and the airflow pattern and determining a piecewise linearization of at least one of the one or more passive circuit elements or active circuit element based on the determined value of airway tissue compliance, determined value of respiration drive, or determined value of airflow. This is further defining the abstract idea identified by the examiner. Therefore, the same rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above for claim 1 can be applied to the following claims. Examiner further considers these claim limitations as pre-solution activity because it is collecting the reference data that is used to make the abstract determination and data gathering is indicative of not amounting to significantly more when considered as a whole. See MPEP 2106(g).
In regards to Claim 7, the applicant is reciting elements that further limit the claims to include a complex impendence for representing an airway segment of the airway, wherein the real part of the complex impedance is configured to represent a dimension of the airway segment, and wherein the imaginary part of the complex impedance is configured to represent an airflow compliance of the airway segment. This is further defining the abstract idea identified by the examiner. No new additional elements were introduced in these claims, therefore, the same rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above for claim 1 can be applied to the following claims. Examiner further considers these claim limitations as pre-solution activity because it is collecting the reference data that is used to make the abstract determination and data gathering is indicative of not amounting to significantly more when considered as a whole. See MPEP 2106(g).
In regards to Claims 8-10, the claim recites a new additional element of “current source” and “voltage source” and routine and conventional as stated page 8 lines 20-23 of specification. The applicant is reciting elements that further limit the claims to include current source for representing a muscular-based respiration drive for airflow in the airway, a voltage source for representing a fixed respiration drive for airflow in the airway, and analyze, with the subject-specific piecewise linearized non-linear airway model, at least one of detected movement of the chest or abdomen of the subject and/or detected airflow in the airway of the subject, so as to obtain an analysis result; and generate an output signal based on the analysis result. This is further defining the abstract idea identified by the examiner and generating an output signal does not make the claim eligible. Furthermore, they are all considered nothing more than a general link to a technological environment and generic computing devices to perform generic communicating functions such as storing data and instructions, transmitting and receiving data between computers. Therefore, the same rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above for claim 1 can be applied to the following claims. Examiner further considers these claim limitations as pre-solution activity because it is collecting the reference data that is used to make the abstract determination and data gathering is indicative of not amounting to significantly more when considered as a whole. See MPEP 2106(g).
In regards to Claim 11, the claim recites a new additional element of “A sleep therapy system” and “controller” is are general purpose computers and displays and routine and conventional as stated page 8 lines 20-23 of specification. Furthermore, they are all considered nothing more than a general link to a technological environment and generic computing devices to perform generic communicating functions such as storing data and instructions, transmitting and receiving data between computers. The applicant is reciting elements that further limit the claims to generating a non-linear model of the airway of a subject and a controller configured to analyze the subject-specific piecewise linearized non- linear airway model and to generate a control signal based on the analysis result. This is further defining the abstract idea identified by the examiner and generating an output signal does not make the claim eligible. Therefore, the same rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above for claim 1 can be applied to the following claims. Examiner further considers these claim limitations as pre-solution activity because it is collecting the reference data that is used to make the abstract determination and data gathering is indicative of not amounting to significantly more when considered as a whole. See MPEP 2106(g).
Claim 12 is eligible because it comprises a breathing ventilation system, and wherein the controller is further adapted to control the breathing ventilation system based on the analysis result.
In regards to Claims 14-15, the applicant is reciting elements that further limit the claims to generating a non-linear model of the airway of the subject and analyzing the subject-specific piecewise linearized non-linear airway model and generating a control signal based on the analysis result. This is further defining the abstract idea identified by the examiner and generating an output signal does not make the claim eligible. Therefore, the same rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above for claim 13 can be applied to the following claims. People (patients or doctor or caregivers) are capable of determining and detecting different parameters—movement patterns and airflow patterns—and the modifying a model to generate a certain piecewise linearized non-linear airway model through observations. Examiner further considers these claim limitations as pre-solution activity because it is collecting the reference data that is used to make the abstract determination and data gathering is indicative of not amounting to significantly more when considered as a whole. See MPEP 2106(g).
Claim 15 is additionally rejected under 101 because, it is not directed to a statutory category of a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. In addition, the claim recites a new additional element of “computer program” and “computer program code” which considered nothing more than a general link to a technological environment and generic computing devices to perform generic communicating functions such as storing data and instructions, transmitting and receiving data between computers. For step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a computer to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Höskuldsson et al. (US 20190274586 A1), hereafter as Höskuldsson, in view of Bouton et al . (US 20180178008 A1), hereafter as Bouton.
Regarding Claim 1, Höskuldsson discloses a system (Fig. 1A; claim 11) for generating a non-linear model (para. 0025) of the airway of a sleeping subject (para. 0063, 0077-0080, 0100), the system comprising:
an interface (Fig. 25, 27) adapted to obtain an airway model configured to represent respiratory airflow in the airway of a subject (Fig. 1A, 1B; 33);
a movement sensor arrangement (Fig. 1A—1C; belts 31, 32 with conductors 34, 35) configured to detect movement of the chest or abdomen of a subject (para. 0025, 0065, 100);
an airflow sensor (para. 0078; through nasal cannula; 0100) arrangement configured to detect an airflow in the airway of the subject (para. 0078, 0084-0085 (equation 3-2; Examiner notes: the calibrated RIP signal can be used as qualitive measurement of airflow to the lungs) ;0100);
and a processor (Fig. 1A; 38; para. 0065) arrangement configured to:
determine a movement pattern from detected movement of the chest or abdomen of the subject (para. 0025, 0063-0065);
determine an airflow pattern from detected airflow in the airway of the subject (Fig. 24-27);
modify the airway model based on the movement pattern and the airflow pattern so as to generate a subject-specific non-linear airway model for the subject representing respiratory airflow in the airway of the subject in a sleep state (Fig. 7, 7A, 9; para. 0111, 0134-0159, 0176).
Höskuldsson does not specifically correlate that the non-linear airway model is piecewise linearized.
However, Bouton teaches a piecewise-linear mapping (para. 0073).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mapping model of Höskuldsson to include the piecewise-linear mapping as taught by Bouton for the purpose of this mapping allows for smooth physical transitions from one movement to the next, controlled by the modulation of intracortical signals (para. 0073).
Regarding Claim 2, Modified Höskuldsson the system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the detected movement and detected airflow (para. 0100) is responsive to a stimulation by an incremental maneuver (Fig. 10; para. 0180), and wherein the processor arrangement (Fig. 1A; 38; para. 0065) is configured to determine a piecewise linearization (para. 0073; Bouton) of a nonlinear element of the airway model based on the incremental maneuver (Fig. 4A-4B; para. 0094-0096).
Regarding Claim 3, Modified Höskuldsson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the airway model comprises a circuit arrangement (Figs. 7-7B) configured to represent the airway of a subject (Fig. 1A, 1B; 33),
and wherein the circuit arrangement comprises:
one or more passive circuit elements (Examiner notes: passive circuits resistors, capacitors, indictors), each passive circuit element being configured to represent a respective anatomical structure of the airway (para. 0134-0136);
and one or more active circuit elements (Examiner notes: active components are read as integrated circuits, transistors, voltages; breathing muscles), each active circuit element being configured to represent a respective driving force for airflow in the airway (Fig. 7-7B; para. 0132-0136; 137-164 equations).
Regarding Claim 4, Modified Höskuldsson discloses the system of claim 3, wherein modifying the airway model comprises:
determining a value of airway tissue compliance based on at least one of the movement pattern and the airflow pattern (para. 0164; Examiner notes: tissue compliance can be determined as one of the parameters);
and determining a piecewise linearization (para. 0073; Bouton) of at least one of the one or more passive circuit elements based on the determined value of airway tissue compliance (Fig. 7-7B; para. 0132-0136; 137-149 equations; Höskuldsson).
Regarding Claim 5, Modified Höskuldsson discloses the system of claim 3, wherein modifying the airway model comprises:
determining a value of respiration drive based on at least one of the movement pattern and the airflow pattern (para. 0164; Examiner notes: respiratory drive can be determined as one of the parameters);
and determining a piecewise linearization (para. 0073; Bouton) of at least one of the one or more active circuit elements based on the determined value of respiration drive (Fig. 7; para. 0136; Höskuldsson)
Regarding Claim 6, Modified Höskuldsson discloses the system of claim 3, wherein modifying the airway model comprises:
determining a value of airflow based on at least one of the movement pattern and the airflow pattern (Para. 0100-0101, 0136);
and determining a piecewise linearization (para. 0073; Bouton) of at least one of the one or more passive circuit elements based on the determined value of airflow (Fig. 7-7B, 9; para. 0136).
Regarding Claim 7, Modified Höskuldsson discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the one or more passive circuit elements (para. 136 ; the resistors Rth, Rab; capacitors Cth, Cab ) comprises:
a complex impendence for representing an airway segment of the airway (para. 136), wherein the real part ( Examiner notes: resistors) of the complex impedance is configured to represent a dimension of the airway segment,
and wherein the imaginary part ( Examiner notes: capacitors) of the complex impedance is configured to represent an airflow compliance of the airway segment (Fig. 7, 7A; para. 0133-0142, 0144).
Regarding Claim 8, Modified Höskuldsson discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the one or more active circuit elements comprises: a current source for representing a muscular-based respiration drive for airflow in the airway (Figs. 7-7B; para. 0134-0136; Examiner notes: air flow is represented by diaphragm and intercostal muscles).
Regarding Claim 9, Modified Höskuldsson discloses the system of claim 3, the one or more active circuit elements comprises at least one of:
a voltage source for representing a fixed respiration drive for airflow in the airway (Fig. 7; para. 0136; 0288-0290).
Regarding Claim 10, Modified Höskuldsson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further adapted to:
analyze, with the subject-specific piecewise linearized (para. 0073; Buton) non-linear airway model, at least one of detected movement of the chest or abdomen of the subject, so as to obtain an analysis result (para. 0020); and generate an output signal based on the analysis result (Fig. 7-7B; 36; para. 0136, 0197, 0319-0326).
Regarding Claim 11, Modified Höskuldsson discloses a sleep therapy system (claim 11) comprising:
a system (Fig. 1A) for generating a non-linear model of the airway of a subject according to claim 1 (Fig. 7, 7A, 9; para. 0111, 0134-0159, 0176);
and controller configured to analyze the subject-specific piecewise linearized (para. 0073; Buton) non-linear airway model and to generate a control signal based on the analysis result (Fig. 7-7B; 36; para. 0078; 0136, 0197, 0300-0303, 0319-0326).
Regarding Claim 12, Modified Höskuldsson discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the sleep therapy system further comprises a breathing ventilation system, and wherein the controller is further adapted to control the breathing ventilation system based on the analysis result (para. 0078, 0301-302).
Regarding Claim 13, Höskuldsson discloses a method (Fig. 1A; claim 11) for generating a non-linear model (para. 0025) of the airway of a sleeping subject, the method comprising:
obtaining an airway model configured to represent respiratory airflow in the airway of a subject (Fig. 1A, 1B; 33); (para. 0063, 0077-0080, 0100);
detecting movement of the chest or abdomen of a subject; detecting an airflow in the airway of the subject;
determining a movement pattern from detected movement of the chest or abdomen of the subject (Fig. 1A—1C; belts 31, 32 with conductors 34, 35; para. 0025, 0065, 100);
determining an airflow pattern from detected airflow in the airway of the subject (para. 0078, 0084-0085 (equation 3-2; Examiner notes: the calibrated RIP signal can be used as qualitive measurement of airflow to the lungs); 0100);
modifying the airway model based on the movement pattern and the airflow pattern so as to generate a subject-specific non-linear airway model for the subject representing respiratory airflow in the airway of the subject in a sleep state (Fig. 7, 7A, 9; para. 0111, 0134-0159, 0176).
Höskuldsson does not specifically correlate that the non-linear airway model is piecewise linearized.
However, Bouton teaches a piecewise-linear mapping (para. 0073).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mapping model of Höskuldsson to include the piecewise-linear mapping as taught by Bouton for the purpose of this mapping allows for smooth physical transitions from one movement to the next, controlled by the modulation of intracortical signals (para. 0073).
Regarding Claim 14, Modified Höskuldsson discloses a method for controlling a sleep therapy system, the method comprising:
generating a non-linear model of the airway of the subject according to claim 13; analyzing the subject-specific piecewise linearized non-linear airway model(para. 0073; Bouton);
and generating a control signal based on the analysis result (Fig. 7-7B; 36; para. 0078; 0136, 0197, 0300-0303, 0319-0326).
Regarding Claim 15, Modified Höskuldsson discloses computer program comprising computer program code which is adapted, when said program is run on a computer, to implement the method of claim 13 (Fig. 7; para. 0136; claim 20).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAAP A ELLABIB whose telephone number is (571)272-5879. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, KENDRA CARTER can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/MAAP ELLABIB/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785