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 .
The following FINAL Office Action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed 03/24/2026 regarding Application 18/820,285.
Status of Claim(s)
Claim(s) 1-17 have been cancelled. Claim(s) 18 is currently pending and is rejected as follows.
Response to Arguments – 101 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the previously applied 101 rejection have been fully
considered but are not deemed persuasive.
Applicant argues that with claims 1-17 cancelled, the previously applied 101 rejection is
no longer applicable, and the newly added 18 are in condition for allowance.
Examiner does not find the arguments persuasive as when analyzed under 35 U.S.C. 101,
the newly added claims recite an invention that is directed towards one or more judicial
exceptions. First independent claim 18 is analyzed under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework
and determined to be directed towards one of the statutory categories, specifically that of a
method comprising at least one step. The claims are then analyzed under Step 2A, Prong One, to
determine if the claims recite an abstract idea. Claim 18 as currently presented provides a method for receiving a response to a survey from a respondent, determining a count of respondents, promoters, passives, and detractors using the steps of receiving a score, determining which count a respondent is to be treated as based on value selected from the survey, and determining a net promoter score with a specific equation, determining a count for the second specified question based on a respondents answer when input into a specific applicant provided equation, determining key drivers to the responses using known techniques for topic modelling, analysis and classification to perform segment-wise response counts for total promoter, passive, and detractor responses using a specific applicant provided equations, then tabulating counts using steps that include adding counts to values for use in more applicant provided and defined equations, calculating segment wise probabilities and impacts for key drivers using applicant defined calculation steps, evaluating the segment wise importance of key drivers, calculating segment wise weights using more applicant defined equations to determine overall impact, importance, and prioritization of the key drivers through averages, simple and weighted, determining the top number of key drivers with the highest relative impact on each segment cumulatively across all segments, determine segment wise sentiment and sentiment impact scores of the key drivers via sentiment analysis through a series of applicant defined calculation steps, determining the top key drivers with the highest relative sentiment impact using a series of user defined calculations, determining a sentiment based importance and prioritization of each key driver cumulatively and across all segments, identifying a set of business drivers from the key drivers, determining a business impact and a business prioritization of the key drivers based on a series of applicant, and generating relevant metrics, statistics, and dashboards. These actions recite method of Organizing Human Activity (Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People), Math (Mathematical Calculations), and a Mental Process (Observations, Evaluations, Judgements, and Opinions that can reasonably be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper). The claims are then analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two do determine if the claims recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent claim 18 recites, a data acquisition module, one or more processing units, memory, random access memory (RAM), a data storage, the interconnect, a I/O device interface, a data processing module, and a network interface. These additional elements were deemed to be no more than merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Additionally, elements such as the data acquisition module, interconnect, I/O device interface, and network interface represent examples of Well-Understood, Routine, or Conventional Activity within the art. Under Step 2B, it was determinate the even when the claims were considered as a whole, the additional elements were again examples of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, or additionally well-understood, routine, or conventional activity (specifically that of mere data gathering). Therefore Claim(s) 40 and by dependency Claim 18 are ineligible with regard to 35 U.S.C. 101. Further elaboration regarding this determination is given in the amended 101 rejection below.
Response to Arguments – 103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the previously applied 103 rejection have been fully
considered and deemed persuasive.
Examiner accordingly withdraws the previously applied prior art rejection.
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 18 is currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed
invention(s) is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e. law of nature, a natural
phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 18 recites an invention for receiving a response to a survey from a respondent, determining a count of respondents, promoters, passives, and detractors using the steps of receiving a score, determining which count a respondent is to be treated as based on value selected from the survey, and determining a net promoter score with a specific equation, determining a count for the second specified question based on a respondents answer when input into a specific applicant provided equation, determining key drivers to the responses using known techniques for topic modelling, analysis and classification to perform segment-wise response counts for total promoter, passive, and detractor responses using a specific applicant provided equations, then tabulating counts using steps that include adding counts to values for use in more applicant provided and defined equations, calculating segment wise probabilities and impacts for key drivers using applicant defined calculation steps, evaluating the segment wise importance of key drivers, calculating segment wise weights using more applicant defined equations to determine overall impact, importance, and prioritization of the key drivers through averages, simple and weighted, determining the top number of key drivers with the highest relative impact on each segment cumulatively across all segments, determine segment wise sentiment and sentiment impact scores of the key drivers via sentiment analysis through a series of applicant defined calculation steps, determining the top key drivers with the highest relative sentiment impact using a series of user defined calculations, determining a sentiment based importance and prioritization of each key driver cumulatively and across all segments, identifying a set of business drivers from the key drivers, determining a business impact and a business prioritization of the key drivers based on a series of applicant, and generating relevant metrics, statistics, and dashboards. These actions fall within the subject matter of abstracts ideas which the courts have considered ineligible (Mental Process (Observations, Evaluations, Judgments, and Opinions with the aid of pen and paper), Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People), and Mathematical Concepts (Mathematical Relationships, Mathematical Formulas or Equations, and Mathematical Calculations)).
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are
directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claim(s) 18 is directed towards a method comprising at least one step. Accordingly, the claims fall within the four statutory of invention (method) and will be further analyzed under Step 2 of the Alice/Mayo framework.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether
the claims recite an abstract idea.
Independent claim 18 recite an invention which recite the abstract ideas of Organizing
Human Activity, Mental Process, and Math in the following limitations:
…receiving a response to a net promoter score survey from a survey respondent, …said net promoter score survey including the following questions:
a question one, asking "On a scale of 0-10, how likely are you to recommend out company/product/service to a friend or colleague?" wherein the response to said question one is an integer from 0-10;
a question two, asking "Please tell us why?" wherein the response to said question two is a text response;
…determining a count of respondents, promoters, passives, and detractors, utilizing the one or more processors, using the following steps:
receiving the response to a net promoter score survey…;
counting the number of promoters, passives, and detractors using the following logic:
if a respondent's response to the question one is a 9 or 10, then said respondent is counted as a promoter, and said response is added to a total promoter responses;
if a respondent's response to the question one is a 7 or 8, then said respondent is counted as a passive, and said response is added to a total promoter passive;
if a respondent's response to the question one is a 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, then said respondent is counted as a detractor, and said response is added to a total detractor responses;
wherein:
the net promoter score is calculated using an equation 1: Net Promoter Score = (PR/RE) - (DE/RE) wherein:
PR = total promoters;
PA = total passives;
DE = total detractors;
RE = total respondents = PR + PA + DE;
…determining a count of responses, utilizing the one or more processors, by counting the number of responses to the question two of the net promotor score survey received, utilizing an equation 2 as follows:
Total Responses (R) = CRPR + CRPA + CRDE;
wherein:
CRPR = total promoter responses to the question two;
CRDE = total detractor responses to the question two;
CRPA = total passive responses to the question two;
…determines one or more key drivers in each of the responses…utilizing any known techniques for topic modeling, topic analysis, and topic classification;
…performing segment-wise response counts for each key driver of the one or more key drivers to determine the counts of each segment of the total promotor, total passive, and total detractor responses containing said key driver…using the following steps:
initialize the count of responses for each key driver (Tx) from promoters, passives, and detractors to zero, using an equation 3:
an equation 3.1: count of promoter response containing key driver x = CRPR(Tx) = 0;
an equation 3.2: count of passive response containing key driver x = CRPA(Tx) = 0;
an equation 3.3: count of detractor response containing key driver x = CRDE(Tx) = 0;
for each key driver (Tx) in the overall list of key drivers (TN), tabulate the counts of the total promoter, total passive, and total detractor responses that contain that key driver, using the following steps:
for each promoter response (RPR), if key driver Tx occurs in that response, add 1 to count CRPR(Tx);
for each passive response (RPA), if key driver Tx occurs in that response, add 1 to count CRPA(Tx);
for each detractor response (RDE), if key driver Tx occurs in that response, add 1 to count CRDE(Tx);
calculate a total count for each key driver (C(Tx)) using an equation 4 as follows:
C(Tx) = CRPR(Tx) + CRPA(Tx) + CRDE(Tx);
sum the total counts across all key drivers (CT), using an equation 5 as follows:
CT = C(Tx), where x = 1 to N;
sum the total promoter, passive, and detractor counts using the following equations:
an equation 5.1: sum of total promoter counts across all key drivers = CTPR = CRPR(T), where x = 1 to N;
an equation 5.2: sum of total passive counts across all key drivers = CTPA = CRPA(T), where x = 1 to N;
an equation 5.3: sum of total detractor counts across all key drivers = CTDE = CRDE(T), where x = 1 to N;
calculate the probability of occurrence of key driver X (Tx) in each response using an equation 6 as follows: P(C(Tx)) = C(Tx) / CT;
the data processing module calculating one or more segment wise probabilities and an impact for each key driver, utilizing the one or more processors, using the following steps:
calculating the conditional probabilities and joint probabilities for each segment for each key driver x, using the following equations:
an equation 7: conditional probability that the key driver x occurs in the response of a promoter = CP(RPR(Tx)) =P(RPR(Tx)/Tx) = CRPR(Tx)/C(Tx);
an equation 8: joint probability that the key driver is x and that the key driver x occurs in the response of a promoter = JP(RPR(Tx)) = P(Tx 0RPR(Tx)) = P(RPR(Tx)/Tx * P(C(Tx));
an equation 9: sum of all joint probabilities across all key drivers for promoters = JPPR = ∑JP(RPR(Tx));
an equation 10: for each key driver x, relative impact of a promoter on key driver x = IPR(Tx) = JP(RPR(Tx))/JPPR;
an equation 11: conditional probability that the key driver x occurs in the response of a passive = CP(RPA(Tx)) =P(RPA(Tx)/Tx) = CRPA(Tx)/C(Tx);
an equation 12: joint probability that the key driver is x and that the key driver x occurs in the response of a passive = JP(RPA(Tx)) = P(Tx0RPA(Tx)) = P(RPA(Tx)/Tx*P(C(Tx));
an equation 13: sum of all joint probabilities across all key drivers for passives = JPPA = ZJP(RPA(Tx));
an equation 14: for each key driver x, relative impact of a passive on key driver x = IPA(Tx) = JP(RPA(Tx))/JPPA;
an equation 15: conditional probability that the key driver x occurs in the response of a detractor = CP(RDE(Tx)) =P(RDE(Tx)/Tx) = CRDE(Tx)/C(Tx);
an equation 16: joint probability that the key driver is x and that the key driver x occurs in the response of a detractor = JP(RDE(Tx)) = P(Tx 0RDE (Tx)) = P(RDE(Tx)/Tx * P(C(Tx));
an equation 17: sum of all joint probabilities across all key drivers for detractors = JPDE =ZJP(RDE(Tx));
and an equation 18: for each key driver x, relative impact of a detractor on key driver x = IDE(Tx) = JP(RDE(Tx))/JPDE;
…evaluating a segment-wise importance and prioritization of key drivers…using the following steps:
taking the impact of the segments as per equation 10, equation 14, and equation 18;
determining the top N key drivers with the highest relative impact for each segment, wherein N is a positive integer; and
using the top N key drivers to determine importance and prioritization of each key driver for promoters, passives, and detractors;
…calculating segment-wise weights from the relative share of responses of promoters, passives, and detractors, using an equation 19 as follows:
overall impact of a key driver = I(Tx) = (IPR(Tx) + IPA(Tx) + IDE(Tx)) / 3;
wherein the values of IPR(Tx), IPA(Tx) and IDE(Tx) have been calculated in the equation 10, the equation 14, and the equation 18;
…determining an overall impact, importance, and prioritization of each of the key drivers through a plurality of weighted averages, including simple average and weighted average…using the following steps:
calculating a weight of promoters (WPR) using an equation 20: WPR = CTPR / CT;
calculating a weight of passives (WPR) using an equation 21: WPR = CTPA/CT;
calculating a weight of detractors (WPR) using an equation 22: WPR = CTDE / CT; and
calculating an overall weighted impact of a key driver (WI(Tx)) using an equation 23: WI(Tx)= WPR * IPR(Tx) + WPA * IPA(Tx) + WDE * IDE(Tx));
…determining the top N number of key drivers…wherein N is a positive whole number and the top key drivers are determined by key drivers with the highest relative impact for each segment and cumulatively across all segments;
…performing a sentiment analysis to determine a segment-wise sentiment score and sentiment impact of each of the key drivers…using the following steps:
Define seven sentiments, each sentiment having a sentiment weight (SW) as follows:
clearly positive (SWCP) with a sentiment weight of 3;
positive (SWP) with a sentiment weight of 2;
mixed (SWM) with a sentiment weight of 1;
neutral (SWNU) with a sentiment weight of 0;
unknown (SWU) with a sentiment weight of 0;
negative (SWN) with a sentiment weight of -2; and
clearly negative (SWCN) with a sentiment weight of -3;
performing a sentiment analysis for each segment of promoters, passives, and detractors;
calculating the distribution of the responses as per said responses sentiment, for each key driver and segment, utilizing the following steps:
for each sentiment (S), sentiment weight (SW) and key driver (Tx), initialize each segment-wise response counts as follows:
an equation 24: count of promoter response containing sentiment S and key driver X = CSRPR(Tx) = 0;
an equation 25: count of passive response containing sentiment S and key driver X = CSRPA(Tx) = 0; and
an equation 26: count of detractor response containing sentiment S and key driver X = CSRDE(Tx) = 0;
for each key driver Tx, define the sentiment counts as follows, where RPR denotes promoter responses, RPA denotes passive responses, and RDE denotes detractor responses:
an equation 27: clearly positive sentiment count = CSCP(Tx) = CSCPRPR(Tx) + CSCPRDE(Tx);
an equation 28: positive sentiment count CSP(Tx) =CSPRPR(Tx) + CSPRPA(Tx) + CSPRDE(Tx);
an equation 29: mixed sentiment count CSM(Tx) =CSMRPR(Tx) + CSMMRPA(Tx) + CSMRDE(Tx);
an equation 30: neutral sentiment count CSNU(Tx) =CSNURPR(Tx) + CSNURPA(Tx) + CSNURDE(Tx);
an equation 31: unknown sentiment count CSU(Tx) =CSURPR(Tx) + CSURPA(Tx) + CSURDE(Tx);
an equation 32: negative sentiment count CSN(Tx) =CSNRPR(Tx) + CSNRPA(Tx) + CSNRDE(Tx); and
an equation 33: clearly negative sentiment count CSCN(Tx) = CSCNRPR(Tx) + CSCNRPA(Tx) + CSCNRDE(Tx);
determine the response count for each segment (S) for each key driver (Tx) using the following equations:
an equation 34: promoter response count for key driver x = CRPR(Tx) = CSCPRPR(Tx) + CSPRPR(Tx) + CMRPR(Tx) + CSNURPR(Tx) + CSURPR(Tx) + CSNRPR(Tx) + CSNRPR(Tx) + CSCNRPR(Tx);
an equation 35: passive response count for key driver x =CRPA(Tx)=CSCNPRPA(Tx) + CSPRPA(Tx)+CMSRPA(Tx) + CSNURPA(Tx) + CSURPA(Tx)+ CSNRPA(Tx) + CSCNRPA(Tx); and
an equation 36: detractor response count for key driver x = CDRDE(Tx) = CSCPRDE(Tx) + CSPRDE(Tx) + CSMRDE(Tx) + CSNURDE(Tx) + CSURDE(Tx) + CSNUJRDE(Tx) + CSNRDE(Tx) + CSNRDE(Tx);
…determining the top N key drivers with the highest relative sentiment impact for each segment and cumulatively across all segments using the following steps:
calculating the sentiment score (SS) for each key driver (Tx) by multiplying the sentiment counts with the corresponding sentiment weights, utilizing an equation 37: Sentiment score = SS(Tx) = CSCP(Tx)*SWCP + CSP(Tx)*SWP + CSM(Tx) * SWM + CSNU(Tx) * SWNU + CSU(Tx) * SWU + CSN(Tx) * SWN + CSCN(Tx) * SWCN;
calculating the total sentiment score as the sum of all key driver-wise sentiment scores, using an equation 38: total sentiment score = SS = ∑S(Tx);
calculating the sentiment impact (SSI) for each key driver Tx by dividing the sentiment score for the key driver (SS(Tx)) by the total sentiment score (SS) using an equation 39: SSI(Tx) = SS(Tx) / SS, wherein the total sentiment impact (SSI) is the sum of all key driver- wise sentiment impacts and is equal to 1.0 (otherwise referred to as 100%) as per an equation 40: SSI= ∑ SI(Tx) = 1.0 = 100%;
calculating key driver-wise sentiment scores and sentiment impacts for each segment of promoters, passives, and detractors, using the following equations:
an equation 41: promoter sentiment score for key driver x = SSPR(Tx) = CSCPRPR(Tx) * SWCP + CSPRPR(Tx) * SW{ + CSMRPR(Tx) * SWM + CSNURPR(Tx) * SWNU+CSURPR(Tx) * SWU + CSNRPR(Tx) * SWN + CSCNRPR(Tx) * SWCN;
an equation 42: total promoter sentiment score = SSPR = ∑SPR(Tx);
an equation 43: promoter sentiment impact for a key driver Tx = SSIPR(Tx) = SSPR(Tx) / SSPR;
an equation 44: passive sentiment score for key driver x = SSPA(Tx) = CSCPRPA(Tx)*SWCP + CSPRPA(Tx)*SWP+CSMRPA(Tx) * SWM + CSNURPA(Tx) * SWNU+ CSURPA(Tx)*SWU + CSNRPA(Tx) * SWN + CSCNRPA(Tx) * SWCN;
an equation 45: total passive sentiment score = SSPA = ∑SPA(Tx);
an equation 46: passive sentiment impact for a key driver Tx = SSIPA(Tx)=SSPA(Tx)/SSPA;
an equation 47: detractor sentiment score for key driver x = SSDE(Tx) = CSCPRDE(Tx) * SWCP + CSPRDE(Tx) * SWP + CSMRDE(Tx) * SWM + CSNURDE(Tx) * SWNU + CSURDE(Tx)*SWU + CSNRDE(Tx) * SWN + CSCNRDE(Tx) * SWCN;
an equation 48: total detractor sentiment score SSDE = ∑SDE(Tx); and
an equation 49: detractor sentiment impact for a key driver Tx =SSIDE(Tx) = SSDE(Tx) / SSDE;
…determining a sentiment-based importance and prioritization of each of the key drivers for each segment and cumulatively across all segments…based on the sentiment impact for each key driver for each segment of promoters, passives, and detractors wherein the lower the sentiment score/ sentiment impact, the higher the prioritization for the key driver;
…identifying a set of business drivers from the key drivers…
…determining a business impact and a business prioritization for the key drivers, utilizing the one or more processors, based on the following equations:
an equation 50: B = ∑Bx, wherein B is a budget, and Bx is cost to run a set of initiatives (INx) for key driver X;
and an equation 51: business impact of a key driver (Tx) = BPI(Tx) =WI(Tx) (or I(Tx)) * Bx;
…generating relevant metrics, statistics, and dashboards
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, any additional elements would be considered to see as to whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Independent claim 18 recites:
a data acquisition module,
one or more processing units,
memory,
random access memory (RAM),
a data storage,
the interconnect,
an I/O device interface,
a data processing module
a network interface
These additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered pair do no more than represent mere instructions to implement the abstract idea ("apply it") computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, the claims represent insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). These elements are recited with a high degree of generality, and the specification sets forth the general purpose nature of the technologies required to implement the invention (emphasis added).
Support for this decision can be found in Paragraph(s) [0021]-[0027] and [0247] of Applicant’s specification.
Under Step 2B eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e. whether any additional element, o combination of elements, adds an inventive concept to the claims (MPEP 2106.05). As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, there are several additional elements. The data acquisition module, one or more processing units, memory, random access memory (RAM), a data storage, the interconnect, a I/O device interface, a data processing module, and network interface are all, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words "apply it" to the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further the data acquisition module, interconnect, I/O device interface, and network interface all represent insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and are additionally actions that are well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art, specifically that of mere data gathering. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Insignificant extra solution activity, especially that which is well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art does not provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements to are not deemed to be sufficient enough to provide an inventive concept onto the abstract idea, therefore, they are not eligible. (Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 134 S. Ct. at 2389, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a §101 that turns on "the draftsman's art")).
Reasons for Overcoming Pertinent Prior Art
Claim(s) 18 is deemed by Examiner to overcome the pertinent prior art, as any applicable prior art does not disclose, either fully or in combination with other art, such as to read on applicant’s claimed limitations in their entirety. Listed below is the prior art most applicable reasons for application, and their deficiencies.
Jang (US 2022/0020039 A1) discloses classifying respondents into categories based on calculations and sentiment analysis but does not disclose the specific steps of equations and calculations, nor the receiving of respondent data to specified survey questions
McLaughlin (US 2021/0256545 A1) discloses a method for receiving respondent answers to surveys, and determining key drivers and their business impact according to various segment analysis, however, does not disclose the specific steps of equations and calculations, nor the specific questions that are provided within the survey
Livne (US 2019/0043068 A1) discloses a method for determining the promoter score based on answers from respondents to a survey, however, does not disclose the specific steps of equations and calculations, nor the specific questions that are provided within the survey.
Conclusion
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 Philip N Warner whose telephone number is (571)270-7407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/Philip N Warner/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights