Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the claims are improperly characterized as being abstract. Examiner points out the features to which Appilcant claims, “applying at least one or more contributor policies to the plurality of grade objects to generate a set of processed grade objects, wherein at least one contributor policy comprises removing X grade objects having highest values and removing Y grade objects having lowest values wherein X and Y are positive integers” offers a technical improvement. Examiner asserts that the claimed contributor policy of removing grade objects having highest values and lowest values is a step that a human could practically do with pen and paper. An example of this contributor policy is described at [0075] in the specification as dropping at least one of the highest or lowest grade objects. This can be performed by a human with pen and paper. Paragraph 0082 describes features of input windows which are not claimed. The invention, as claimed, does not offer an improvement to a computer or any technology. While on page 9 of Applicant’s remarks, there are broad allegations that the invention offers a solution that is rooted in technology, it is unclear how applying policies and aggregation to assessment data is a technology rooted solution. Further, a policy of removing X grade objects having highest values and removing Y grading objects having lowest values, is a conventional normalization technique known as trimmed mean or truncated mean. This step is a mental process that can be practically performed by a human with pen and paper. While the use of this technique may offer improved data analysis, there is no improvement to any technology or technical field. The rejection under 35 USC 101 is upheld.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) amended to include whrein at least one contributor policy comprises removing X grade objects having highest values and removing Y grade objects having lowest values, wherein X and Y are positive integer have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Chiszar et al has been introduced and discloses a performance assessment system wherein a trimmed mean is applied to the rubrics or checklists graded on the computer at paragraphs [0061-0065]. The rejection is updated below.
In the previous Office Action mailed 9/5/2025, notice was taken by the Examiner that certain subject matter is old and well known in the art. Per MPEP 2144.03(c), these statements are taken as admitted prior art because no traversal of this statement was made in the subsequent response. Specifically, it has been taken as prior art that: in claims 8, 16 and 25, it is old and well known in the art of grading and scoring assessments that 100% is a perfect score and thus aggregate grades would not rise above 100%. Further, rounding a grade to a discrete value is also old and well known in the art of grading a scoring assessments.
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) 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-16 is/are directed to a method and system which are within the four potentially eligible categories of invention (a process, a machine and an article of manufacture, respectively), satisfying Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) test.
Claims 17-25 are rejected as being directed toward non-statutory subject matter. The claims recite a “computer readable medium”. The specification, paragraph 0088, page 22, states the medium may be provided in various forms such as, but not limited to, wire-line transmissions, satellite transmission, etc., known as signals. Signals are not statutory under 35 USC 101. A claim directed to a signal per se does not appear to be a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
As per Prong One of Step 2A of the §101 eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the Examiner notes that the claims recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. More specifically, independent claims recite:
obtaining a plurality of grade objects including a grade value associated with each grade object; [mental process – observation/evaluation]
applying at least one or more contributor policies to the plurality of grade objects to generate a set of processed grade objects, wherein at least one contributor policy comprises removing X grade objects having highest values and removing Y grade objects have lowest values, wherein X and Y are positive integers; [mental process – observation/evaluation]
applying an aggregator to the set of processed grade objects to generate an aggregate grade object; [mental process – observation/evaluation] and
applying zero or more result policies to the aggregate grade object to generate a result grade object. [mental process – observation/evaluation]
The claims recite steps to generate a grade which amount to data analysis. The concept of data analysis is a fundamental business practice long prevalent in our system of commerce. The use of data analysis is also a building block of ingenuity in corporate planning. Thus, data analysis, like hedging, is an "abstract idea" beyond the scope of §101. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. at 2356.
The claims include recitations of steps or rules or instructions to generate a grade. Further, the claimed invention relates to teaching. For these reasons, the claims are certain methods of organizing human activity. In addition, the claims recite mental processes as indicated in the reproduced claim above.
The nominal recitation of a processor in claim 1; a computing device in claim 9; and the CRM of claim 17 does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, a claim reciting an abstract idea must be analyzed to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
In this case, the independent claims do not include limitations that meet the criteria listed above, thus the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claim 1 recites a processor which performs the method and independent claim 9 recites a device comprising a data storage device and at least one processor. Independent claim 17 recites a CRM. These recitations amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea and some recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 2 and 10 recite storing in a data store. This amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application. Claims 3, 11 and 19 recite displaying on a display, generating a hardcopy and sending to an electronic device. This amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application. Claims 4-8 and 12-16 and 20, 22-25 recite additional steps of the data processing which is mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity similar to claims 1, 9 and 17 respectively. Any computer implementation amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application. The claims do not include limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When considered individually and in combination, the system and software claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. The invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense.
Lastly and in accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
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 (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.
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) 1-7, 9-15, 17, 19, 20, 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandella et al, US 2006/0286537, in view of Chiszar et al, US 2005/0233295.
As per claim 1, Mandella et al discloses a method for processing a plurality of grade objects, the method being performed by a processor, wherein the method comprises:
obtaining a plurality of grade objects including a grade value associated with each grade object ([0031 and 0041] – grade collection to evaluate answer);
applying zero or more contributor policies to the plurality of grade objects to generate a set of processed grade objects ([0031] – assigns weighting to assist in assigning score);
applying an aggregator to the set of processed grade objects to generate an aggregate grade object ([0031] – averages together to derive a recommended overall score); and
applying zero or more result policies to the aggregate grade object to generate a result grade object ([0031] – graders option to override scores prior to submission).
Mandella et al fails to explicitly disclose while Chiszar et al, in an analogous performance assessment system, discloses removing X grade objects having highest values and removing Y grade objects having lowest values, wherein X and Y are positive integers [0061-0065]. The sole difference between the primary reference and the claimed subject matter is that the primary reference does not disclose the contributor policy as claimed. The secondary reference discloses a trimmed mean (definition: A truncated mean or trimmed mean is a statistical measure of central tendency, much like the mean and median. It involves the calculation of the mean after discarding given parts of a probability distribution or sample at the high and low end, and typically discarding an equal amount of both) and shows this technique was known in the prior art at the time of the invention. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate reference, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of the removal of the highest and lowest values the weighting of the secondary reference for the weighting of the primary reference. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
As per claim 2, Mandella et al discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises storing the result grade object in a data store ([0039] – graded answer stored in an answer database).
As per claim 3, Mandella et al discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises at least one of displaying the result grade object on a display, generating a hardcopy output of the result grade object and sending the result grade object to an electronic device ([0039] - graded answer may be stored in an answer database. In a non-limiting embodiment, the graded answer remains associated with the test-taker. In an alternative embodiment, the grader may send the scorecard directly to a test-taker associated with the answer).
As per claim 4, Mandella et al discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method comprises relating the plurality of grade objects to one another according to an assessment structure before applying the zero or more contributor policies ([0009] – objective valuation categories are evaluation relative to each other to determining weighting; [0037, 0038, 0040-0041] – each category of score valuation is given an objective valuation, the objective valuation categories may or may not be weighted before the objective valuation categories are provided to a grader on a scorecard).
As per claim 5, Mandella et al discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the grade objects comprise zero or more atom grade objects and zero or more aggregate grade objects ([0007] grade objects comprise tests).
As per claim 6, Mandella et al discloses the method of claim 1, wherein at least one other contributor policy comprises applying a weight to each grade object, wherein a weight of 0 can be used to remove at least one of the grade objects ([0031] – assigns weighting to assist in assigning score).
As per claim 7, Mandella et al discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the aggregator is configured to perform one of summing the set of processed grade objects, averaging the set of processed grade objects, obtaining a median of the set of processed grade objects, obtaining a mode of the set of processed grade objects, obtaining a minimum of the set of processed grade objects, obtaining a maximum of the set of processed grade objects, applying a Boolean logic expression to the set of processed grade objects and applying a numeric formula to the set of processed grade objects ([0031] – averages together to derive a recommended overall score).
As per claim 9, Mandella et al discloses a computing device for generating context specific terms, wherein the computing device comprises: a data storage device comprising at least one collection of electronic files defining at least one contributor policy, at least one aggregation function, and at least one result policy; and at least one processor in data communication with the data storage device, the at least one processor being configured to process a plurality of grade objects by obtaining a plurality of grade objects including a grade value associated with each grade object ([0031 and 0041] – grade collection to evaluate answer);
applying zero or more contributor policies to the plurality of grade objects to generate a set of processed grade objects ([0031] – assigns weighting to assist in assigning score);
applying an aggregator to the set of processed grade objects to generate an aggregate grade object ([0031] – averages together to derive a recommended overall score); and
applying zero or more result policies to the aggregate grade object to generate a result grade object ([0031] – graders option to override scores prior to submission).
Mandella et al fails to explicitly disclose while Chiszar et al, in an analogous performance assessment system, discloses removing X grade objects having highest values and removing Y grade objects having lowest values, wherein X and Y are positive integers [0061-0065]. The sole difference between the primary reference and the claimed subject matter is that the primary reference does not disclose the contributor policy as claimed. The secondary reference discloses a trimmed mean (definition: A truncated mean or trimmed mean is a statistical measure of central tendency, much like the mean and median. It involves the calculation of the mean after discarding given parts of a probability distribution or sample at the high and low end, and typically discarding an equal amount of both) and shows this technique was known in the prior art at the time of the invention. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate reference, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of the removal of the highest and lowest values the weighting of the secondary reference for the weighting of the primary reference. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
As per claim 10, Mandella et al discloses wherein the method further comprises storing the result grade object in a data store ([0039] – graded answer stored in an answer database).
As per claim 11, Mandella et al discloses wherein the method further comprises at least one of displaying the result grade object on a display, generating a hardcopy output of the result grade object and sending the result grade object to an electronic device ([0039] - graded answer may be stored in an answer database. In a non-limiting embodiment, the graded answer remains associated with the test-taker. In an alternative embodiment, the grader may send the scorecard directly to a test-taker associated with the answer).
As per claim 12, Mandella et al discloses wherein the method comprises relating the plurality of grade objects to one another according to an assessment structure before applying the zero or more contributor policies ([0009] – objective valuation categories are evaluation relative to each other to determining weighting; [0037, 0038, 0040-0041] – each category of score valuation is given an objective valuation, the objective valuation categories may or may not be weighted before the objective valuation categories are provided to a grader on a scorecard).
As per claim 13, Mandella et al discloses wherein the grade objects comprise zero or more atom grade objects and zero or more aggregate grade objects ([0007] grade objects comprise tests).
As per claim 14, Mandella et al discloses wherein at least one other contributor policy comprises applying a weight to each grade object, wherein a weight of 0 can be used to remove at least one of the grade objects ([0031] – assigns weighting to assist in assigning score).
As per claim 15, Mandella et al discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to implement the aggregator by one of summing the set of processed grade objects, averaging the set of processed grade objects, obtaining a median of the set of processed grade objects, obtaining a mode of the set of processed grade objects, obtaining a minimum of the set of processed grade objects, obtaining a maximum of the set of processed grade objects, applying a Boolean logic expression to the set of processed grade objects and applying a numeric formula to the set of processed grade objects ([0031] – averages together to derive a recommended overall score).
As per claim 17, Mandella et al discloses a computer readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions executable on at least one processor of an electronic device for configuring the electronic device to implement a method of for processing a plurality of grade objects [0087], wherein the method comprises:
obtaining a plurality of grade objects including a grade value associated with each grade object ([0031 and 0041] – grade collection to evaluate answer);
applying zero or more contributor policies to the plurality of grade objects to generate a set of processed grade objects ([0031] – assigns weighting to assist in assigning score);
applying an aggregator to the set of processed grade objects to generate an aggregate grade object ([0031] – averages together to derive a recommended overall score); and
applying zero or more result policies to the aggregate grade object to generate a result grade object ([0031] – graders option to override scores prior to submission).
Mandella et al fails to explicitly disclose while Chiszar et al, in an analogous performance assessment system, discloses removing X grade objects having highest values and removing Y grade objects having lowest values, wherein X and Y are positive integers [0061-0065]. The sole difference between the primary reference and the claimed subject matter is that the primary reference does not disclose the contributor policy as claimed. The secondary reference discloses a trimmed mean (definition: A truncated mean or trimmed mean is a statistical measure of central tendency, much like the mean and median. It involves the calculation of the mean after discarding given parts of a probability distribution or sample at the high and low end, and typically discarding an equal amount of both) and shows this technique was known in the prior art at the time of the invention. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate reference, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of the removal of the highest and lowest values the weighting of the secondary reference for the weighting of the primary reference. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
As per claim 19, Mandella et al discloses wherein the method further comprises at least one of displaying the result grade object on a display, generating a hardcopy output of the result grade object and sending the result grade object to an electronic device ([0039] - graded answer may be stored in an answer database. In a non-limiting embodiment, the graded answer remains associated with the test-taker. In an alternative embodiment, the grader may send the scorecard directly to a test-taker associated with the answer).
As per claim 20, Mandella et al discloses wherein the method comprises relating the plurality of grade objects to one another according to an assessment structure before applying the zero or more contributor policies ([0009] – objective valuation categories are evaluation relative to each other to determining weighting; [0037, 0038, 0040-0041] – each category of score valuation is given an objective valuation, the objective valuation categories may or may not be weighted before the objective valuation categories are provided to a grader on a scorecard).
As per claim 22, Mandella et al discloses wherein the grade objects comprise zero or more atom grade objects and zero or more aggregate grade objects ([0007] grade objects comprise tests).
As per claim 23, Mandella et al discloses wherein at least one other contributor policy comprises applying a weight to each grade object, wherein a weight of 0 can be used to remove at least one of the grade objects ([0031] – assigns weighting to assist in assigning score).
As per claim 24, Mandella et al discloses instructions to perform one of summing the set of processed grade objects, averaging the set of processed grade objects, obtaining a median of the set of processed grade objects, obtaining a mode of the set of processed grade objects, obtaining a minimum of the set of processed grade objects, obtaining a maximum of the set of processed grade objects, applying a Boolean logic expression to the set of processed grade objects and applying a numeric formula to the set of processed grade objects ([0031] – averages together to derive a recommended overall score).
Claim(s) 8, 16 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandell et al, US 2006/0286537 and Chiszar et al, US 2005/02330295.
As per claims 8, 16 and 25, Mandell et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the zero or more result policies comprise at least one of limiting the aggregate grade object to a value of not more than 100% and converting the aggregate grade object to a discrete value that is closest in value to the aggregate grade object and is selected from a set of discrete values. It is taken as admitted prior art of grading and scoring assessments that 100% is a perfect score and thus aggregate grades would not rise above 100%. Further, rounding a grade to a discrete value is also old and well known in the art of grading a scoring assessments. [see response to arguments for failure to challenge official notice].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-25 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,073,480. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of US 12,073,480 anticipate pending claims 1-25 of the instant application. Elimination of a an element or its functions is deemed to be obvious in light of prior art teachings of at least the recited element or its functions (see In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184, 186; 311 F2d 581 (CCPA 1963)), thereby rendering the elimination of any elements recited in the claims of the related patent (that are not recited in the instant claims) obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pertinent prior art is listed in the attached PTO 892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNA LOFTIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
JOHNNA LOFTIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JOHNNA R LOFTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625