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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that claims 8 and 20-21 of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combinations of elements/limitations in the claims, including the particular configurations of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combinations, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 1, 17, and 18, Claim(s) 1, 17, and 18 recite(s):
- in response to processing of a first item, determining processing information of the first item, the processing information including: processing path information and/or processing duration information for processing the first item;
- determining whether the processing information satisfies a predetermined judgment condition;
- in response to the processing information satisfying the judgment condition, output first predetermined information.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): encompasses management of people acting in a computing workflow.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- outputting via displaying; an electronic device comprising: at least one memory and at least one processor; wherein the at least one memory is configured to store program codes, and the at least one processor is configured to call the program codes stored in the at least one memory to perform acts; a non-transitory computer readable storage medium for storing program codes, the program codes, upon run by a processor, causing the processor to perform acts: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the 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. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 2-15 and 19-21, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- enter a page (claims 2-4, 7-9, 12, and 19-21);
- stay on a page (claims 2-4, 6, 8, and 19-21);
- a page (claims 2-4, 6-9, 12, and 19-21);
- an open interface (claim 5);
- display a page (claim 7);
- terminals (claim 8);
- a printing result (claim 14);
- printing (claim 14).
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, claim 10 merely adds further steps to the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 1-15 and 17-21 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 13, 15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canis, US 20160098681 A1, in view of Kaboff, US 20140012591 A1.
As per Claims 1, 17, and 18, Canis discloses:
- a method of information processing (paragraph [0006] (method); paragraph [0008] (computer program product));
- in response to processing of a first item, determining processing information of the first item, the processing information including: processing duration information for processing the first item (paragraph [0065] (“As discussed in more detail below, in response to the task being placed in the user inbox 113-115, a timer may be started to track the time spent by the user on the task for use in determining a KPI.”); paragraph [0121] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0124] (“The historical data relating to the amount of time spent on tasks may also enable carriers to determine the effects of actions on efficiency.”));
- an electronic device comprising: at least one memory and at least one processor; wherein the at least one memory is configured to store program codes, and the at least one processor is configured to call the program codes stored in the at least one memory to perform acts (paragraph [0008]);
- a non-transitory computer readable storage medium for storing program codes, the program codes, upon run by a processor, causing the processor to perform acts (paragraph [0008]).
Canis fails to disclose determining whether the processing information satisfies a predetermined judgment condition; in response to the processing information satisfying the judgment condition, display first predetermined information. Kaboff discloses determining whether the processing information satisfies a predetermined judgment condition (paragraph [0096] (“For example, the server system may generate an alert based on the total time taken to complete a task or visit associated with one or more patients, wherein the alert is indicative of spending too much or too little time on the task or visit.”); paragraph [0127] (whole paragraph)); in response to the processing information satisfying the judgment condition, display first predetermined information (paragraph [0096] (“For example, the server system may generate an alert based on the total time taken to complete a task or visit associated with one or more patients, wherein the alert is indicative of spending too much or too little time on the task or visit.”); paragraph [0127] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0129] (“FIG. 11 shows a pictorial representation of a display screen for a web portal server computer, illustrating a pending alerts screen according to an example embodiment. As illustrated, the pending alerts screen may include clinical and/or operational alerts and may further include data associated with the pending alert.”)). 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 invention of Canis such that the invention determines whether the processing information satisfies a predetermined judgment condition; and in response to the processing information satisfying the judgment condition, the invention displays first predetermined information, as disclosed by Kaboff, 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.
As per Claim 10, Canis further discloses wherein the function includes determining the processing information of the first item (paragraph [0065]; paragraph [0121]; paragraph [0124]).
The modified Canis fails to disclose before performing a function, determining whether the function is enabled; in response to a time alert function being enabled, performing the time alert function; in response to a time alert function being disabled, not performing the time alert function. Kaboff further discloses before performing a function, determining whether the function is enabled; in response to a time alert function being enabled, performing the time alert function; in response to a time alert function being disabled, not performing the time alert function (paragraph [0096]; paragraph [0127]; paragraph [0129]). 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 invention of the modified Canis such that before performing a function, the invention determines whether the function is enabled; in response to a time alert function being enabled, the invention performs the time alert function; and, in response to a time alert function being disabled, the invention does not perform the time alert function, as disclosed by Kaboff, 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.
As per Claim 13, Canis further discloses wherein the first item is an item of a target node of a processing flow of a target task; and displaying the first predetermined information comprises: displaying the first predetermined information in an area associated with the target node of the processing flow (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]; paragraph [0065]; paragraphs [0117]-[0118]; paragraph [0121]; paragraph [0124]).
As per Claim 15, Canis further discloses obtaining statistical data of the first predetermined information generated during the processing procedure of the item; and displaying the statistical data (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]; paragraph [0065]; paragraphs [0117]-[0118]; paragraph [0121]; paragraph [0124]).
Claim(s) 2-6, 9, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canis in view of Kaboff in further view of Sarceda, US 20220329545 A1.
As per Claims 2 and 19, the modified Canis fails to disclose wherein: the processing duration information includes: a stay duration on the details page. Sarceda discloses wherein: the processing duration information includes: a stay duration on the details page (paragraph [0028]; paragraph [0054]; paragraph [0073]). 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 invention of the modified Canis such that the processing duration information includes: a stay duration on the details page, as disclosed by Sarceda, 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.
As per Claim 3, the modified Canis fails to disclose wherein determining whether the processing information satisfies the predetermined judgment condition comprises: in response to an activity being performed during the processing procedure, determining whether the judgment condition is satisfied based on the duration of time spent performing the activity. Kaboff further discloses wherein determining whether the processing information satisfies the predetermined judgment condition comprises: in response to an activity being performed during the processing procedure, determining whether the judgment condition is satisfied based on the duration of time spent performing the activity (paragraph [0096]; paragraph [0127]; paragraph [0129]). 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 invention of the modified Canis such that determining whether the processing information satisfies the predetermined judgment condition comprises: in response to an activity being performed during the processing procedure, determining whether the judgment condition is satisfied based on the duration of time spent performing the activity, as disclosed by Kaboff, 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.
The modified Canis fails to disclose wherein the activity is visiting a details page. Sarceda further discloses wherein the activity is visiting a details page (paragraph [0028]; paragraph [0054]; paragraph [0073]). 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 invention of the modified Canis such that the activity is visiting a details page, as disclosed by Sarceda, 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.
(NOTE: Since claim 3 is a method claim, it is not necessary to give patentable weight to both conditional limitations here. See MPEP 2111.04(II).)
As per Claim 4, the modified Canis fails to disclose wherein determining whether the processing information satisfies the predetermined judgment condition comprises: in response to an activity being performed during the processing procedure, determining whether the judgment condition is satisfied based on the duration of time spent performing the activity. Kaboff further discloses wherein determining whether the processing information satisfies the predetermined judgment condition comprises: in response to an activity being performed during the processing procedure, determining whether the judgment condition is satisfied based on the duration of time spent performing the activity (paragraph [0096]; paragraph [0127]; paragraph [0129]). 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 invention of the modified Canis such that determining whether the processing information satisfies the predetermined judgment condition comprises: in response to an activity being performed during the processing procedure, determining whether the judgment condition is satisfied based on the duration of time spent performing the activity, as disclosed by Kaboff, 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.
The modified Canis fails to disclose wherein the activity is visiting a details page. Sarceda further discloses wherein the activity is visiting a details page (paragraph [0028]; paragraph [0054]; paragraph [0073]). 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 invention of the modified Canis such that the activity is visiting a details page, as disclosed by Sarceda, 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.
(NOTE: Since claim 4 is a method claim, it is not necessary to give patentable weight to every conditional limitation here. See MPEP 2111.04(II).)
As per Claim 5, Canis further discloses wherein the predetermined mode includes batch processing of items (paragraph [0048]).
As per Claim 6, the modified Canis fails to disclose wherein determining whether the judgment condition is satisfied based on the duration of time spent performing the activity comprises: in response to the duration of time spent performing the activity being less than a predetermined duration, determining that the judgment condition is satisfied; and in response to the duration of time spent performing the activity being greater than or equal to the predetermined duration, determining that the judgment condition is unsatisfied. Kaboff further discloses wherein determining whether the judgment condition is satisfied based on the duration of time spent performing the activity comprises: in response to the duration of time spent performing the activity being less than a predetermined duration, determining that the judgment condition is satisfied; and in response to the duration of time spent performing the activity being greater than or equal to the predetermined duration, determining that the judgment condition is unsatisfied (paragraph [0096]; paragraph [0127]; paragraph [0129]). 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 invention of the modified Canis such that determining whether the judgment condition is satisfied based on the duration of time spent performing the activity comprises: in response to the duration of time spent performing the activity being less than a predetermined duration, determining that the judgment condition is satisfied; and in response to the duration of time spent performing the activity being greater than or equal to the predetermined duration, determining that the judgment condition is unsatisfied, as disclosed by Kaboff, 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.
The modified Canis fails to disclose wherein the activity is visiting a details page. Sarceda further discloses wherein the activity is visiting a details page (paragraph [0028]; paragraph [0054]; paragraph [0073]). 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 invention of the modified Canis such that the activity is visiting a details page, as disclosed by Sarceda, 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.
As per Claim 9, the modified Canis fails to disclose whether the judgment condition is satisfied is determined according to a duration comprising multiple different sub-activities. Kaboff further discloses whether the judgment condition is satisfied is determined according to a duration comprising multiple different sub-activities (paragraph [0074]; paragraph [0096]; paragraph [0097]; paragraph [0113]; paragraph [0127]; paragraph [0129]). 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 invention of the modified Canis such that whether the judgment condition is satisfied is determined according to a duration comprising multiple different sub-activities, as disclosed by Kaboff, 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.
The modified Canis fails to disclose wherein an activity begins in response to the details page being entered, and the activity includes visiting the details page. Sarceda further discloses wherein an activity begins in response to the details page being entered, and the activity includes visiting the details page (paragraph [0028]; paragraph [0054]; paragraph [0073]). 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 invention of the modified Canis such that an activity begins in response to the details page being entered, and the activity includes visiting the details page, as disclosed by Sarceda, 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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canis in view of Kaboff in further view of Sarceda in further view of Manuel-Devadoss, US 20190087496 A1.
As per Claim 7, the modified Canis fails to disclose wherein: the details page is entered for processing by: displaying the details page for processing, after the notification message is triggered. Manuel-Devadoss wherein: the details page is entered for processing by: displaying the details page for processing, after the notification message is triggered (Figure 5; paragraph [0033]). 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 invention of the modified Canis such that the details page is entered for processing by: displaying the details page for processing, after the notification message is triggered, as disclosed by Manuel-Devadoss, 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.
(NOTE: Since claim 7 is a method claim, it is not necessary to give patentable weight to both conditional limitations here. The two alternatives of claim 7 are conditional because a detail page may or may not be entered based on claim 2, from which claim 7 depends. See MPEP 2111.04(II).)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canis in view of Kaboff in further view of Bender, European Patent Reference No. EP 2775435 A1.
As per Claim 11, the modified Canis fails to disclose wherein the first function is enabled by default for a predetermined type of items, the predetermined type of items including an item with an importance level reaching a predetermined level. Bender discloses wherein the first function is enabled by default for a predetermined type of items, the predetermined type of items including an item with an importance level reaching a predetermined level (paragraph [0021]; paragraph [0028]; paragraph [0034]; paragraph [0035]). 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 invention of the modified Canis such that the first function is enabled by default for a predetermined type of items, the predetermined type of items including an item with an importance level reaching a predetermined level, as disclosed by Bender, 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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canis in view of Kaboff in further view of Thomas, US 7945600 B1, in further view of Sarceda.
As per Claim 12, the modified Canis fails to disclose determining whether a second function is enabled. Kaboff further discloses determining whether a second function is enabled (paragraph [0129]). 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 invention of the modified Canis such that the invention determines whether a second function is enabled, as disclosed by Kaboff, 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.
The modified Canis fails to disclose wherein a function is a quick review function that allows steps to be skipped. Thomas discloses wherein a function is a quick review function that allows steps to be skipped (column 12, lines 45-59; column 18, lines 44-64). 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 invention of the modified Canis such that a function is a quick review function that allows steps to be skipped, as disclosed by Thomas, 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.
The modified Canis fails to disclose wherein a reviewing step for processing a task is entering a details page for the task. Sarceda discloses wherein a reviewing step for processing a task is entering a details page for the task (paragraph [0028]; paragraph [0054]; paragraph [0073]). 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 invention of the modified Canis such that a reviewing step for processing a task is entering a details page for the task, as disclosed by Sarceda, 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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canis in view of Kaboff in further view of Stein, US 20200311661 A1.
As per Claim 14, the modified Canis fails to disclose wherein the first predetermined information is not displayed in a printing result during printing of the first item. Stein discloses wherein the first predetermined information is not displayed in a printing result during printing of the first item (Figure 10; paragraph [0051]). 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 invention of the modified Canis such that the first predetermined information is not displayed in a printing result during printing of the first item, as disclosed by Stein, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Grasselt, US 9922106 B2 (reallocating jobs for checking data quality).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ERB whose telephone number is (571)272-7606. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11:30 AM - 8 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, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
nhe
/NATHAN ERB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628