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 .
Application Status
Present office action is in response to application filed 06/26/2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category?
Independent claims 1, 16 and 18 each recites “a division-decimal table teaching device” (i.e. a machine). As such, independent claims 1, 16 and 18 are each directed to a statutory category of invention within § 101, i.e., machine, process and manufacture. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Independent claim 18, analyzed as representative of the claimed subject matter, is reproduced below.
A division-decimal table teaching device comprising:
a printed table arranged in a grid having a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns;
wherein said plurality of rows having at least twelve rows and said plurality of columns having at least twelve columns;
a top row having sequential numbers between 0 and 15 spanning horizontally in a left to right orientation;
a first column having sequential numbers between 0 and 15 spanning vertically in a top to bottom orientation;
wherein said grid having at least 144 cells wherein each cell is an intersection corresponding to one row and one column;
wherein a number in said first column represents a dividend;
wherein a number in said top row represents a divisor;
wherein each number in said each cell represents a quotient resulting from an intersection of a corresponding said dividend divided by a corresponding said divisor; wherein said table displays a plurality of quotients having a combination of whole numbers and decimal numerals;
wherein a portion of said plurality of quotients are non-terminating quotients and another portion of said plurality of quotients are terminating quotients; and
further wherein said dividends, said divisors, and said quotients are electronic digital numerals.
The published Specification discloses “the present invention relates to novel division problems practice table device that can help students to learn and memorize division problems” and that “the device …can be physical or digital” (¶ 2). It is well established that humans have long used pen and paper and/or a board (blackboard) to perform calculations such as addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Thus, other than reciting the “electronic digital numerals” additional non-abstract limitation noted in independent claim 18 above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim limitations may be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, and judgments and may also be characterized as organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A: Prong 1. (Step 2A – Prong 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
The computer component(s), namely the “wearable device” is recited at a high level of generality (see published Specification (at least ¶ 23: well-known structures and devices are shown in block diagram form …; ¶ 38: FIG. 5 illustrates a perspective view showing the division table 100 being displayed in an electronic device in a digital form in accordance with the disclosed architecture. In the present embodiment, a digital version 500 of the division table device 100 is displayed on the display device 502 of the electronic device 504. The digital version 500 can be easily accessed and downloaded in the internal memory of the electronic device 504 for easy usage; ¶ 41: One of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the division problems teaching aid device 100, 300, 500 as shown in the FIGS. are for illustrative purposes only, and that many other sizes and shapes of the division problems teaching aid device 100, 300, 500 are well within the scope of the present disclosure. Although the dimensions of the division problems teaching aid device 100, 300, 500 are important design parameters for user convenience, the division problems teaching aid device 100, 300, 500 may be of any size that ensures optimal performance during use and/or that suits the user's needs and/or preferences. The lack of details about the “electronic digital numerals” indicates that the additional element(s) is/are generic, or part of generic computer elements performing or being used in performing the generic functions claimed. The claim does not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)); (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. The claimed invention merely implements the abstract idea using instructions executed on generic computer components, as shown in bold above, and as supported in the above noted pertinent portions of the Specification. The instant claim merely uses a programmed computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The implied data input and the display of data each represents an extra-solution activity and an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); see, e.g., CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We have held that mere ‘[data-gathering] step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory.”’ (alterations in original) (quoting In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989))); see also Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (“[W]e have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.”). The instant claim as a whole merely uses computer instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or, alternatively, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The claim limitations amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment (a computer) in which to apply a judicial exception and, as such, cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Hence, as per MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h), the additional element(s) in claim 18, namely the “electronic digital numerals” do not, either individually or in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Because the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the “electronic digital numerals” in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the published Specification, as noted above (for example, (¶¶ 23, 38, 41)) describes the “electronic digital numerals” in general terms, without describing the particulars, the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional computer components and techniques, particularly in light of the published Specification sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional element(s) to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum. Furthermore, the Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III (A)(1) explains that a specification that describes additional element(s) “in a manner that indicates that the additional element(s) is/are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional element(s) to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” can show that the elements are well understood, routine, and conventional); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claimed mobile interface is so lacking in implementation details that it amounts to merely a generic component (software, hardware, or firmware) that permits the performance of the abstract idea, i.e., to retrieve the user-specific resources.” The generic description of the “electronic digital numerals” indicates the steps are well-known enough that no further description is required for a skilled artisan to understand the process and that these computer components are all used in a manner that is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. The claim limitations are not distinguished from generic, conventional data gathering and data presentation with a computer. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1356 (claims to gathering, analyzing, and displaying data in real time using conventional, generic technology do not have an inventive concept); Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Hence, the additional element(s) is/are generic, well-known, and conventional computing element(s). The use of the additional element(s) either alone or in combination amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are patent ineligible. (Step 2B: NO).
In regard to independent Claim 1:
Independent claim 1 recites division-decimal table teaching device comprising elements comparable to those of representative claim 18. Accordingly, independent claim 1 is rejected similarly to representative claim 18.
In regard to independent Claim 6
Independent claim 1 recites division-decimal table teaching device comprising elements comparable to those of representative claim 18. Accordingly, independent claim 1 is rejected similarly to representative claim 18.
In regard to the dependent claims:
Dependents claims 2-15, 17 and 19-20 include all the limitations of corresponding independent claims 1 and 18 from which they depend and, as such, recite the same abstract idea(s) noted above for independent claim 1. The dependent claims do not appear to remedy the issues noted above. As per MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h), none of the limitations of claims 2-5 and 9-14 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Additionally, while dependent claims 2-15, 17 and 19-20 may have a narrower scope than corresponding independent claims 1 and 18, no claim contains an “inventive concept” that transforms the corresponding claim into a patent-eligible application of the otherwise ineligible abstract idea(s). Therefore, dependent claims 2-15, 17 and 19-20 are not drawn to patent eligible subject matter as they are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8, 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Donn (US 20020015936 A1).
Re claims 1 and 16:
[Claim 1] Donn teaches or at least suggests a multiplication table teaching device comprising: a printed table arranged in a grid having a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns; wherein said plurality of rows having at least ten rows and said plurality of columns having at least ten columns; a top row having sequential numbers between 1 and 12 spanning horizontally in a left to right orientation; a first column having sequential numbers between 1 and 12 spanning vertically in a top to bottom orientation; wherein said grid having at least 100 cells wherein each cell is an intersection corresponding to one row and one column (at least ¶ 39: game board 10 is illustrated in FIG. 1 of the drawings. The game board 10 has a generally square configuration, with each of the four edges 12 through 18 being substantially equal in length to provide an equal number of multiplier and multiplicand positions therealong. The parallel first and second edges 12, 14 form an opposed horizontal row edge pair of multiplication factors, while the parallel third and fourth edges 16, 18 form an opposed vertical columnar edge pair of multiplication factors along the periphery of the board 10).
The sequential numbers being between 0 and 25 would have been an obvious matter of choice.
Donn appears to be silent on the teaching device being a division-decimal table teaching device, wherein a number in said first column represents a dividend; wherein a number in said top row represents a divisor; wherein each number in said each cell represents a quotient resulting from an intersection of a corresponding said dividend divided by a corresponding said divisor; and further wherein said table displays a plurality of quotients having a combination of whole numbers and decimal numerals. However, the relationship between multiplication and division is part of basic arithmetic concepts. Additionally, different divisions of whole numbers lead to different decimal quotients. Some decimal quotients may be terminating (1÷2; 1÷4), some may be non-terminating (1÷7; 1÷17), and some may be repeating decimals (1÷3; 1÷9). Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Donn’s multiplication table into a division-decimal table teaching device because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
[Claim 16] The claim recites division-decimal table teaching device comprising elements comparable to those of representative claim 1 except for wherein a portion of said plurality of quotients having non-terminating quotients. However, different divisions of whole numbers lead to different decimal quotients. Some decimal quotients may be terminating (1÷2; 1÷4), some may be non-terminating (1÷7; 1÷17), and some may be repeating decimals (1÷3; 1÷9). Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Donn as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). Accordingly, independent claim 16 is rejected similarly to representative claim 1.
Re claim 2:
[Claim 2] Donn is silent on wherein said printed table having a laminated transparent outer layer for protecting said printed table. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Donn as claimed because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use.
Re claim 3:
[Claim 3] Donn teaches or at least suggests wherein said top row having sequential numbers between 1 and 12 spanning horizontally in a left to right orientation, and further wherein said first column having sequential numbers between 1 and 12 spanning vertically in a top to bottom orientation (at least ¶ 39).
Re claim 4:
[Claim 4] The feature wherein said top row having sequential numbers between 0 and 12 spanning horizontally in a left to right orientation, and further wherein said first column having sequential numbers between 0 and 12 spanning vertically in a top to bottom orientation would have been an obvious matter of choice.
Re claim 5:
[Claim 5] The feature wherein said top row having sequential numbers between 1 and 15 spanning horizontally in a left to right orientation, and further wherein said first column having sequential numbers between 1 and 15 spanning vertically in a top to bottom orientation would have been an obvious matter of choice.
Re claim 6:
[Claim 6] The feature wherein said top row having sequential numbers between 0 and 15 spanning horizontally in a left to right orientation, and further wherein said first column having sequential numbers between 0 and 15 spanning vertically in a top to bottom orientation would have been an obvious matter of choice.
Re claims 7-8 and 10:
[Claims 7-8 and 10] Donn appears to be silent on wherein a portion of said plurality of quotients having non-terminating quotients, wherein said non-terminating quotients having at least one repeating decimal, wherein another portion of said plurality of quotients having terminating quotients, wherein another portion of said plurality of quotients having terminating quotients. However, different divisions of whole numbers lead to different decimal quotients. Some decimal quotients may be terminating (1÷2; 1÷4), some may be non-terminating (1÷7; 1÷17), and some may be repeating decimals (1÷3; 1÷9). Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Donn as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Re claim 14:
[Claim 14] Donn teaches or at least suggests wherein each said cell is a flash card (at least ¶ 17: game tiles).
Claims 9, 11-12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Donn as applied to claims 8 and 16, in view of Sellon (US 4445865 A).
Re claims 9, 11-12 and 17:
[Claims 9] Donn appears to be silent on wherein said at least one repeating decimal having a horizontal bar displayed thereabove. However, the concept and advantages of overlaid horizontal bar were old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as evident in Sellon (col 1, lines 40-42 and 60-61: Transparent colored overlay strips are provided with a particular color of the transparency corresponding to a particular unit value… accompanying drawing is a top plan view of a multiplication chart having color overlay strips; col 2, lines 7-18: Transparent strips 12 and 14 are provided for movement along the columns (in the manner to be described) and identical strips 16 and 18 are provided for movement along the rows. The array elements are all of the same size and each of the strips is as wide as the elements of the array and slightly longer than the length of the array. (4) The vertical strips are of different colors, preferably primary colors. The horizontal strips are of the same colors. In a preferred embodiment where four strips were employed each set consisted of one blue and one yellow strip). Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have used the overlay strips of Sellon to modify Donn as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known technique to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
[Claim 11] Donn in view of Sellon teaches or at least suggests wherein said dividends, said divisors, and said quotients are 2D printed (Donn: at least ¶ 17: game tiles).
[Claim 12] The feature wherein said dividends, said divisors, and said quotients are 3D would have been an obvious matter of choice.
[Claim 17] Donn appears to be silent on wherein said non-terminating quotients having at least one repeating decimal,. However, different divisions of whole numbers lead to different decimal quotients. Some decimal quotients may be terminating (1÷2; 1÷4), some may be non-terminating (1÷7; 1÷17), and some may be repeating decimals (1÷3; 1÷9). Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Donn as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Donn appears to be silent on wherein said at least one repeating decimal having a horizontal bar displayed thereabove. However, the concept and advantages of overlaid horizontal bar were old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as evident in Sellon (col 1, lines 40-42 and 60-61: Transparent colored overlay strips are provided with a particular color of the transparency corresponding to a particular unit value… accompanying drawing is a top plan view of a multiplication chart having color overlay strips; col 2, lines 7-18: Transparent strips 12 and 14 are provided for movement along the columns (in the manner to be described) and identical strips 16 and 18 are provided for movement along the rows. The array elements are all of the same size and each of the strips is as wide as the elements of the array and slightly longer than the length of the array. (4) The vertical strips are of different colors, preferably primary colors. The horizontal strips are of the same colors. In a preferred embodiment where four strips were employed each set consisted of one blue and one yellow strip). Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have used the overlay strips of Sellon to modify Donn as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known technique to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Donn in view of Brett (US 20080268407 A1). Claim 15 is also rejected under this heading for concision,
Re claim 15:
[Claim 15] Donn does not disclose wherein each said cell is a digital flash card. That is, Donn does not disclose the use of a computing device and associated computer programs. However, it is well known to incorporate instructional methods, including methods of teaching math concepts, into a computer program product, as evidenced by Brett (¶s 7-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to implement a software tool to display a virtual manipulative on a computer screen that is based on the physical manipulative of Donn so as to provide visual impressions of the manipulative such that the display is of the physical manipulative, and can be adapted to incorporate the fact strategies discovered and adopted on the physical manipulative (Brett: ¶ 57) in order to provide a printed table, wherein said dividends, said divisors, and said quotients are electronic digital numerals, wherein each said cell is a digital flash card. This would provide a more convenient manipulative and an additional, more intuitive representation of the concepts taught by the manipulative. This virtual manipulative would also allow one or more users to perform the claimed method using a computer and benefit from automatic tracking of answers, instant reporting of results and trends (Brett: ¶s 9, 11 and 57).
Re claims 18-20:
[Claims 18-20] The claim recites division-decimal table teaching device comprising elements comparable to those of representative claim 1 except for wherein a portion of said plurality of quotients having non-terminating quotients. Donn further discloses wherein each said cell is a flash card (at least ¶ 17: game tiles). However, different divisions of whole numbers lead to different decimal quotients. Some decimal quotients may be terminating (1÷2; 1÷4), some may be non-terminating (1÷7; 1÷17), and some may be repeating decimals (1÷3; 1÷9). Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Donn as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). Accordingly, independent claim 16 is rejected similarly to representative claim 1.
Donn discloses the above stated limitations of the instant claim with the exception of the use of. That is Donn does not disclose the use of a computing device and associated computer programs. However, it is well known to incorporate instructional methods, including methods of teaching math concepts, into a computer program product, as evidenced by Brett (¶s 7-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to implement a software tool to display a virtual manipulative on a computer screen that is based on the physical manipulative of Donn so as to provide visual impressions of the manipulative such that the display is of the physical manipulative, and can be adapted to incorporate the fact strategies discovered and adopted on the physical manipulative (Brett: ¶ 57) in order to provide a printed table, wherein said dividends, said divisors, and said quotients are electronic digital numerals, wherein each said cell is a digital flash card. This would provide a more convenient manipulative and an additional, more intuitive representation of the concepts taught by the manipulative. This virtual manipulative would also allow one or more users to perform the claimed method using a computer and benefit from automatic tracking of answers, instant reporting of results and trends (Brett: ¶s 9, 11 and 57).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Donn in view of Sellon, as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Brett.
Re claim 13:
[Claim 13] Donn does not disclose wherein said dividends, said divisors, and said quotients are electronic digital numerals That is, Donn does not disclose the use of a computing device and associated computer programs. However, it is well known to incorporate instructional methods, including methods of teaching math concepts, into a computer program product, as evidenced by Brett (¶s 7-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to implement a software tool to display a virtual manipulative on a computer screen that is based on the physical manipulative of Donn so as to provide visual impressions of the manipulative such that the display is of the physical manipulative, and can be adapted to incorporate the fact strategies discovered and adopted on the physical manipulative (Brett: ¶ 57) in order to provide a printed table, wherein said dividends, said divisors, and said quotients are electronic digital numerals, wherein each said cell is a digital flash card. This would provide a more convenient manipulative and an additional, more intuitive representation of the concepts taught by the manipulative. This virtual manipulative would also allow one or more users to perform the claimed method using a computer and benefit from automatic tracking of answers, instant reporting of results and trends (Brett: ¶s 9, 11 and 57).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO
Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDDY SAINT-VIL whose telephone number is (571)272-9845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:30 AM -6:00 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, PETER VASAT can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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.
/EDDY SAINT-VIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715