Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-6, 12-20 is/are pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 2/1/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
1. 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 1-6, 12-20 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 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), claim(s) 19 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim(s) 20 is/are drawn to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, 19, and 20 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-6, 12-20 are directed to notifying information. Specifically, the claims recite acquiring a current location of a notification target person; and acquiring a group of modalities that are available to notify the notification target person of the information in the current location; acquiring an activity intensity of the notification target person in the current location; determining, on the basis of the current location and the activity intensity, a first sort of modality that hinders an activity of the notification target person from a group of modalities; selecting a second sort of modality used to notify the notification target person of the information from among the modalities which are included in the group of modalities and are different from the first sort of modality, which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as processor, computer, device, network, non-transitory computer readable storage medium merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the processor, computer, device, network, non-transitory computer readable storage medium perform(s) the steps or functions of notifying the notification target person of the information by the second sort of modality. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of processor, computer, device, network, non-transitory computer readable storage medium to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of notifying information. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the processor, computer, device, network, non-transitory computer readable storage medium perform(s) the steps or functions of notifying the notification target person of the information by the second sort of modality. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of notifying information. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6, 12-20 further describe the abstract idea of notifying information. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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) 1-6, 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada (U.S. Patent App Pub 20230063897) in view of Seo (U.S. Patent App Pub 20190315376).
Regarding claim 1,
Hamada teaches an information notification method for notifying information by a modality which stimulates at least one of human five senses, the information notification method comprising: by a computer, acquiring a current location of a notification target person; (See paragraphs 34, 35, 45, 46, fig. 2-3, Hamada teaches current locating of person in a car) and acquiring a group of modalities that are available to notify the notification target person of the information in the current location;(See paragraphs 44-47, fig. 2-3, Hamada teaches based on a users location having modalities for notification including sounds, voice display)
acquiring an activity intensity of the notification target person in the current location; (See paragraphs 40-44, fig. 2-3, Hamada teaches how fast the user is driving in the car)
determining, on the basis of the current location and the activity intensity, a first sort of modality that hinders an activity of the notification target person from a group of modalities; (See paragraphs 44-46, fig. 2-3, Hamada teaches determine if an obstruction is in the users path, notifies the driver of the traffic obstruction)
Hamada does not explicitly teach but Seo teaches selecting a second sort of modality used to notify the notification target person of the information from among the modalities which are included in the group of modalities and are different from the first sort of modality; and (See figures 3-4, paragraphs 69, 73, Seo teaches a second notification)
notifying the notification target person of the information by the second sort of modality. (See figures 3-4, paragraphs 69, 73, Seo teaches a second notification sent to the person)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Seo with Hamada because both deal with notifying a user of issues. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Seo into Hamada is that Seo teaches the control circuit may be configured to adjust the power seat to a predetermined location together with outputting the third notification. The control circuit may adjust a location and height of the power seat to reduce an impact on the driver when a collision occurs., therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See paragraphs [0004] - [0006], Seo)
Regarding claim 2,
Hamada and Seo teach the information notification method according to claim 1, wherein, in the determining of the first sort of modality, an activity content of the notification target person is estimated from the current location and the activity intensity, and the first sort of modality is determined on the basis of the activity content. (See paragraphs 44, 52, 54, Hamada)
Regarding claim 3,
Hamada and Seo teach the information notification method according to claim 1, further comprising: detecting another person who is different from the notification target person and located in a predetermined range from the current location; and adding, on the basis of an attribute of the another person or a situation of the another person, at least one of a modality that hinders an activity of the another person and a modality that has a possibility of leaking the information to be notified to the notification target person to the another person, to the first sort of modality. (See paragraphs 48, 51, 52, Hamada)
Regarding claim 4,
Hamada and Seo teach the information notification method according to claim 1, further comprising: acquiring a time period in which the current location is acquired; and adding, to the first sort of modality, a modality that is associated in advance with the time period and hinders an activity of a person. (See paragraphs 47, 46, Hamada)
Regarding claim 5,
Hamada and Seo teach the information notification method according to claim 1, wherein, in the determining of the first sort of modality, with reference to a table associating a location where the notification target person is likely to be with an intensity of an activity of the notification target person in the location and judgment information indicating whether each modality included in the group of modalities hinders the activity of the notification target person, a modality which is indicated to hinder the activity of the notification target person by the judgment information associated with the location agreeing with the current location and the intensity of the activity in the location agreeing with the activity intensity in the current location is determined as the first sort of modality, the method further comprising receiving a change in the content of the table. (See paragraphs 42, 44, 46, 52, Hamada)
Regarding claim 6,
Hamada and Seo teach the information notification method according to claim 1, wherein, in the selecting of the second sort of modality, a third sort of modality that is available to notify the information to the current location or a remote location farther than the current location is selected as the second sort of modality from modalities which are included in the group of modalities and are different from the first sort of modality. (See paragraphs 45, 53, Hamada)
Regarding claim 12,
Hamada and Seo teach the information notification method according to claim 1, wherein, in the acquiring of the current location, a sensor is used to detect whether the notification target person is in a space where the sensor is arranged, and the space where the sensor having detected the notification target person is arranged is acquired as the current location. (See paragraphs 43, 52, Hamada)
Regarding claim 13,
Hamada and Seo teach the information notification method according to claim 1, further comprising receiving an input of the current location, wherein, in the acquiring of the current location, the received current location is acquired. (See paragraphs 43-45, Hamada)
Regarding claim 14,
Hamada and Seo teach the information notification method according to claim 1, wherein, in the acquiring of the activity intensity, a sensor is used to detect an action speed of the notification target person in a space where the sensor is arranged, and the activity intensity is acquired on the basis of the action speed of the notification target person. (See paragraphs 44-45, Hamada)
Regarding claim 15,
Hamada and Seo teach the information notification method according to claim 1, wherein, in the acquiring of the activity intensity, a sensor is used to detect a posture of the notification target person in a space where the sensor arranged, and the activity intensity is acquired on the basis of the posture of the notification target person. (See paragraphs 44, 45, Hamada)
Regarding claim 16,
Hamada and Seo teaches the information notification method according to claim 1, wherein, in the acquiring of the activity intensity, among two acquisition ways consisting of a way of using a sensor to detect an action speed of the notification target person and acquiring an activity intensity on the basis of the detected action speed of the notification target person and a way of using a sensor to detect a posture of the notification target person and acquiring the detected activity intensity, one way that is associated in advance with the current location is performed to acquire the activity intensity. (See paragraphs 44-46, fig. 2-3, Hamada)
Regarding claim 17,
Hamada and Seo teach the information notification method according to claim 1, wherein, in the acquiring of the activity intensity, among two acquisition ways consisting of a way of using a sensor to detect an action speed of the notification target person and acquiring an activity intensity on the basis of the detected action speed of the notification target person and a way of using a sensor to detect a posture of the notification target person and acquiring the detected activity intensity, one way that is associated in advance with the number of postures which the notification target person is likely to take in the current location is performed to acquire the activity intensity. (See paragraphs 44-46, fig. 2-3, Hamada teaches determine if an obstruction is in the users path, notifies the driver of the traffic obstruction)
Regarding claim 18,
Hamada and Seo teach the information notification method according to claim 1, further comprising receiving an input of the activity intensity, wherein, in the acquiring of the activity intensity, the received activity intensity is acquired. (See paragraphs 44-46, fig. 2-3, Hamada)
Regarding claim 19,
Hamada teaches an information notification device that notifies information by a modality which stimulates at least one of human five senses, the information notification device comprising: a processor; and a memory, the processor being configured to , by executing a program stored in memory; acquire a current location of a notification target person; (See paragraphs 34, 35, 45, 46, fig. 2-3, Hamada teaches current locating of person in a car) and acquire a group of modalities that are available to notify the notification target person of the information in the current location; ; (See paragraphs 44-47, fig. 2-3, Hamada teaches based on a users location having modalities for notification including sounds, voice display)
acquire an activity intensity of the notification target person in the current location; (See paragraphs 40-44, fig. 2-3, Hamada teaches how fast the user is driving in the car)
determine, on the basis of the current location and the activity intensity, a first sort of modality that hinders an activity of the notification target person from the group of modalities; (See paragraphs 44-46, fig. 2-3, Hamada teaches determine if an obstruction is in the users path, notifies the driver of the traffic obstruction)
Hamada does not explicitly teach but Seo teaches select a second sort of modality used to notify the notification target person of the information from among the modalities which are included in the group of modalities and are different from the first sort of modality; and (See figures 3-4, paragraphs 69, 73, Seo teaches a second notification)
notify the notification target person of the information by the second sort of modality. (See figures 3-4, paragraphs 69, 73, Seo teaches a second notification sent to the person)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Seo with Hamada because both deal with notifying a user of issues. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Seo into Hamada is that Seo teaches the control circuit may be configured to adjust the power seat to a predetermined location together with outputting the third notification. The control circuit may adjust a location and height of the power seat to reduce an impact on the driver when a collision occurs., therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See paragraphs [0004] - [0006], Seo)
Claim 20 list all the same elements of claim 1, but in medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One. As for Step 2A Prong One, of the Abstract idea is directed towards the abstract idea of notifying information which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
B. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong Two. As for Step 2A Prong Two, the claim limitations do not include additional elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and the claim is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception and the claim limitation simply describe the abstract idea. The limitation directed to notifying information does not add technical improvement to the abstract idea. The recitations to “processor, computer, device, network, non-transitory computer readable storage medium” perform(s) the steps or functions of notifying the notification target person of the information by the second sort of modality. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
C. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2B.
As for Step 2B, The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the limitation directed to notifying information does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Furthermore, using well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea does not constitute significantly more. The recitations to “processor, computer, device, network, non-transitory computer readable storage medium” are generically recited computer structure. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of notifying information. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
b. Applicant argues “In contrast, the claimed invention has a configuration of acquiring a group of modalities that are available to notify a notification target person of information in a current location of the notification target person, and actively selecting a sort of modality from the group of modalities depending on, i.e., on the basis of, the current location and an activity intensity. Specifically, the claimed invention essentially differs from Hamada in that the claimed invention is not aimed at only switching between two kinds of fixedly defined notification methods depending on a conditional branch like Hamada, but is aimed at achieving a notification control for actively selecting an optimal sort of modality on the basis of a current location of a notification target person and an active intensity thereof.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to paragraphs 46-47 which teaches [0046] In the vehicle 20 of the embodiment described above, when the traffic obstruction has occurred on the traveling route, determination is made whether the obstruction recognition difficulty condition that brings difficulty for the driver in the recognition of the obstruction on the traveling route is satisfied by using the information on the other vehicle between the vehicle and the location where the obstruction has occurred. When no obstruction recognition difficulty condition is satisfied, the driver is notified of the traffic obstruction on the traveling route by displaying the obstruction on the center display 72 without performing the notification by voice or sound. When any obstruction recognition difficulty condition is satisfied, the driver is notified of the traffic obstruction on the traveling route by displaying the obstruction on the center display 72 and by outputting voice or sound indicating the obstruction from the loudspeaker attached to the center display 72. Thus, it is possible to change the notification method about the occurrence of the obstruction depending on the condition of the vehicle between the vehicle and the location where the obstruction has occurred. [0047] In the vehicle 20 of the embodiment, when any obstruction recognition difficulty condition is satisfied, the driver is notified of the traffic obstruction on the traveling route by displaying the obstruction on the center display 72 and by outputting voice or sound indicating the obstruction from the loudspeaker attached to the center display 72. When the notification by voice or sound is unnecessary due to a driver attribute such as the age, driving experience, and driving level of the driver although any obstruction recognition difficulty condition is satisfied, the driver may be notified of the traffic obstruction on the traveling route by displaying the obstruction on the center display 72 without performing the notification by voice or sound. In the vehicle 20 of the embodiment, when no obstruction recognition difficulty condition is satisfied, the driver is notified of the traffic obstruction on the traveling route by displaying the obstruction on the center display 72 without performing the notification by voice or sound. When determination is made that the driver is fatigued although no obstruction recognition difficulty condition is satisfied, the driver may be notified of the traffic obstruction on the traveling route by displaying the obstruction on the center display 72 and by outputting voice or sound indicating the obstruction from the loudspeaker attached to the center display 72. FIG. 3 shows an example of an obstruction notification process in consideration of these cases. Hereinafter, the obstruction notification process of FIG. 3 will be described. This section teaches based on a user’s location having modalities for notification including sounds, voice display. These are the different modalities that can present the alert to the user at the user location. These are different modes of delivering the alerts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and located in the PTO-892 form.
1.Linden, U.S. Patent App 20050177416, teaches mobile advertising methods and improvements, for instance, the adding of global positioning satellite tracking devices to mobile advertising platforms for purposes of verification of location, travel routes, mileage, etc. Incorporation of the Internet, Intranet, peer-to-peer and/or other networking systems and associated software for improving business methods, account access, and the interface between the advertiser or client, the ad agency or administration, and those persons or entities associated with the mobile platforms. Providing wireless communication systems for mobile advertising platforms for enabling real-time messages and for real-time interaction and/or for connecting central or distributed service operations. Providing improved compensation particularity to those persons or entities associated most closely with the mobile platforms. Incorporation of video and/or still e-cameras and/or audio equipment into the mobile advertising platform.
2. Routtenberg, U.S. Patent App 20090177523, teaches a system and method gather market information associated with consumer activity considering the geographic position of the consumer. The system and method employ mobile locator devices that can compile geographic information and transmit a request from a user for target information (usually marketing information), along with geographic information to a server capable of logging the requests with the geographic information and target information sought. The server can then distribute the requests to servers to provide the target information. The resulting information can be used to create a database of information requests made and then provide a profile of consumer activity based on the database created with the geographic information associated with each request.
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 NINOS DONABED whose telephone number is (571)272-8757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00pm - 4:00pm.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
/NINOS DONABED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444