DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final office action on the merits in application number 18/949,692. This action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments dated 7/29/26. Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, 13 and 16 were amended, and Claim 7 was cancelled and Claims 17-20 were added. Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
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 asserts on page 7 and 8 that the art of record does not specifically teach the newly added claim language. Examiner agrees and now, as necessitated by amendment, asserts the art of record in view of Whitney teaches all of the claim elements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 10-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0046552 (Marino) in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0320470 (Whitney).
Regarding Claim 1:
Marino teaches a medical supply cabinet (see [0007] “medical supplies”) with RFID antennae attached to/imbedded into movable shelves. Marino teaches: (Currently Amended) A storage apparatus, comprising: a housing, ([0030] “cabinet” and see Fig 1).
wherein the housing includes: a plurality of shelf retaining features configured to support and provide communications with one or more respective shelves; ([0017] “The shelf can be moveably repositioned within a cabinet, thereby allowing the cabinet to accommodate a variety of different sized articles. Further, if it is desired for the cabinet to hold different sized articles at a later time, the shelves can be easily and quickly repositioned. If the connector for the antenna assembly supplies power to the antenna assembly and provides data and RF connectivity for the antenna assembly, then the ease of moving the shelves is even further accentuated in that only a single connector need be connected or disconnected whenever the shelf is moved” and see Fig 1).
a plurality of radio frequency identification (RFID)-enabled readers, wherein the plurality of RFID-enabled readers comprise a plurality of antennae embedded or attached to the one or more respective shelves of the storage apparatus; ([0032] “The antenna assemblies described hereinafter may be placed within the shelves 12, 14, 16, 18 and the divider 19, thereby allowing an RFID reader to read the RFID tags of articles placed within cabinet 10” and [0039] “antenna assembly 50 includes multiple antennas located within a first antenna layer 52 and a second antenna layer 54 “ and see Fig 4).
and processing circuitry configured to receive and perform instructions therein. ([0034] “The reader 102 reads one antenna at a time, and then provides information regarding the RFID tags found by that antenna to processor 104. The processor 104 maintains a list of all items found on each shelf and compiles a list of the contents of the cabinet 10. It then relays that information to the server 116”).
While Marino also teaches a server that obtains inventory information from a plurality of RFID cabinets and teaches wherein data obtained by one or more of the plurality of RFID-enabled readers is (output) ([0034] “The reader 102 reads one antenna at a time, and then provides information regarding the RFID tags found by that antenna to processor 104. The processor 104 maintains a list of all items found on each shelf and compiles a list of the contents of the cabinet 10. It then relays that information to the server 116”), Marino does not specifically teach: (the data is) provided to a product expiration management system, Whitney, in the same field of art teaches this element: ([0114] “the expired medication tracking 210”).
Whitney, also teaches: wherein the product expiration management system is configured to apply one or more machine learning algorithms to the data to determine when one or more products will expire prior to being used. ([0114] “the expired medication tracking 210 component offers simplified expired medication management that provides ease of internally supplying medications and diverting purchases to an internal supplier for medications approaching their expiration date. In an embodiment, the component provides an alert indicating the medications will expire soon. In an embodiment, the expired medication tracking 210 includes a neural network for optimizing inventory to further reduce expired medication waste. In an embodiment, this could include tracking the quantities expired, the value expired, generating inventory level suggestions”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the system taught by Marino could be predictably improved by tracking the historical location and expiration dates of medications and using machine learning, as taught by Whitney to analyze locations and usage patterns in the historical data that indicate potential waste leading to the efficiencies of machine learning predictably providing earlier information and a faster response time to move the medications to a location with greater need.
Regarding Claim 2:
Marino in view of Whitney teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Marino also teaches: (Currently Amended) The storage apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of antennae is embedded or attached to a wall, top, or bottom of the plurality of shelf retaining features. ([0033] “Various electronic devices associated with reading RFID tags can be placed within the top 20 of the cabinet 10. For example, a switch, an RFID reader and a processor can be placed within the top 20 of the cabinet 10 in order to facilitate the use of the shelves 12, 14, 16, 18 with an antenna assembly for reading RFID tagged articles contained within the cabinet 10” and see also Fig. 1 which illustrates a plurality of shelf retaining features).
Regarding Claim 3:
Marino in view of Whitney teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Marino also teaches: (Currently Amended) The storage apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of shelf retaining features include a plurality of slots. (see Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 4:
Marino in view of Whitney teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Marino also teaches: (Original) The storage apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a number of shelves or spacing between each of the one or more respective shelves implemented in the apparatus is customizable. ([0031] “repositionable shelves” and see Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 5:
Marino in view of Whitney teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Marino also teaches: (Currently Amended) The storage apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more of the plurality of RFID-enabled readers obtain the data and/or register the one or more products affixed with an RFID tag. ([0034] “The reader 102 reads one antenna at a time, and then provides information regarding the RFID tags found by that antenna to processor 104. The processor 104 maintains a list of all items found on each shelf and compiles a list of the contents of the cabinet 10. It then relays that information to the server 116”).
Regarding Claim 6:
Marino in view of Whitney teaches all of the elements of Claims 1 and 5. Marino also teaches: (Original) The storage apparatus of claim 5, further comprising: a memory being configured to store program code and transmit the program code to the processing circuitry; and the processing circuitry being configured to obtain the data and/or register the one or more products according to instructions in the program code. ([0034] “The processor 104 maintains a list of all items found on each shelf and compiles a list of the contents of the cabinet 10. It then relays that information to the server 116”)
Regarding Claim 10:
Marino in view of Whitney teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Marino also teaches: (Currently Amended) The storage apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of antennae embedded and/or attached to the one or more respective shelves of the storage apparatus include a plurality of antenna loops overlapping with one another and configured to read one or more RFID tags. ([0053] “The first antenna layer 52 reads RFID tags in most orientations. However, to further improve the coverage, a second antenna layer 54 is used. The second antenna layer 54 has antennas which are generally orthogonal to the first antenna layer 52” and see Figs 4-6).
Regarding Claim 11:
Marino in view of Whitney teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Marino also teaches: (Original) The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus may be mobile. (see Fig 1, note wheels on bottom of cabinet”).
Regarding Claim 13:
Marino in view of Whitney teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Examiner notes that the amendments to Claim 1, upon which Claim 13 depends, have materially changed the context of Claim 13. Marino teaches (Currently Amended) The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more products affixed with an RFID tag are stored by a consumer, wherein the RFID tag is scannable by a consumer system for transmission of the data to the (server). [0032] “The antenna assemblies described hereinafter may be placed within the shelves 12, 14, 16, 18 and the divider 19, thereby allowing an RFID reader to read the RFID tags of articles placed within cabinet 10”).
As discussed with respect to Claim 1, Marino does not specifically teach a “product expiration management system” as now taught by Claim 1 nor teach (transmission of the data to the) product expiration management system but Whitney in the same field of art, teaches this element: ([0114] “the expired medication tracking 210”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the system taught by Marino could be predictably improved by using a machine learning expired medication tracking system, as taught by Whitney, because the efficiencies of machine learning will predictably provide earlier information and a faster response time to move the medications to a location with greater need.
Regarding Claim 14:
Marino in view of Whitney teaches all of the elements of Claims 1 and 13. Examiner notes that the amendments to Claim 1, upon which Claims 13 and 14 depend, have materially changed the context of Claim 14. Marino also teaches: (Original) The apparatus of claim 13, wherein each of the one or more products stored by the consumer are monitored by the (system) to determine whether each of the one or more products are expired products and/or products near expiration. ([0096] “Rapid recall task 233 may perform one or more processes that allow a user or business entity (e.g., retailer, item manufacturer, etc.) to trace items based on critical data, such as lot number, age, etc. Task 233 may determine and provide information about an item or items that may need to be removed from a shelf, or whose sales should be accelerated for other reasons. For example, certain types of items may have an associated expiration date determined by their manufacture, such as pharmaceuticals, health and beauty products, and perishable goods (e.g., foodstuffs)…Therefore, shrinkage task 233 may identify items that are approaching an expiration date and provide information to a user that indicate the expiration date condition”).
As discussed with respect to Claim 1, Marino does not specifically teach a “product expiration management system” as now taught by Claim 1 nor teach (monitored by the) product expiration management system but Whitney in the same field of art, teaches this element: ([0114] “the expired medication tracking 210 includes a neural network for optimizing inventory to further reduce expired medication waste. In an embodiment, this could include tracking the quantities expired”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the system taught by Marino could be predictably improved by using a machine learning expired medication tracking system, as taught by Whitney, because the efficiencies of machine learning will predictably provide earlier information and a faster response time to move the medications to a location with greater need.
Regarding Claim 15:
Marino in view of Whitney teaches all of the elements of Claims 1 and 13-14. Examiner notes that the amendments to Claim 1, upon which Claims 13-15 depend, have materially changed the context of Claim 15. Marino also teaches: (Original) Wherein upon determining that one or more products are expired products and/or products near expiration, the (product expiration management) system monitors the consumer system to determine one or more next steps to be taken for each of the one or more products that is expired and/or near expiration. ([0096] “Rapid recall task 233 may perform one or more processes that allow a user or business entity (e.g., retailer, item manufacturer, etc.) to trace items based on critical data, such as lot number, age, etc. Task 233 may determine and provide information about an item or items that may need to be removed from a shelf, or whose sales should be accelerated for other reasons. For example, certain types of items may have an associated expiration date determined by their manufacture, such as pharmaceuticals, health and beauty products, and perishable goods (e.g., foodstuffs)…Therefore, shrinkage task 233 may identify items that are approaching an expiration date and provide information to a user that indicate the expiration date condition”).
As discussed with respect to Claim 1, Marino does not specifically teach a “product expiration management system” as now taught by Claim 1 nor teach product expiration management system (determines one or more next steps) but Whitney in the same field of art, teaches this element: ([0114] “generating inventory level suggestions”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the system taught by Marino could be predictably improved by using a machine learning expired medication tracking system, as taught by Whitney, because the efficiencies of machine learning will predictably provide earlier information and a faster response time to move the medications to a location with greater need.
Regarding Claim 16:
Marino in view of Whitney teaches all of the elements of Claims 1 and 13-15. Examiner notes that the amendments to Claim 1, upon which Claims 13-16 depend, have materially changed the context of Claim 16. Marino also teaches: (Currently Amended) wherein the one or more next steps include sending a notification to the consumer via an alert, moving the one or more products to a different location, reviewing historical data of the one or more products, or reviewing other locations of the consumer system. ([0096] “Rapid recall task 233 may perform one or more processes that allow a user or business entity (e.g., retailer, item manufacturer, etc.) to trace items based on critical data, such as lot number, age, etc. Task 233 may determine and provide information about an item or items that may need to be removed from a shelf, or whose sales should be accelerated for other reasons. For example, certain types of items may have an associated expiration date determined by their manufacture, such as pharmaceuticals, health and beauty products, and perishable goods (e.g., foodstuffs)…Therefore, shrinkage task 233 may identify items that are approaching an expiration date and provide information to a user that indicate the expiration date condition”). Examiner notes that Whitney also teaches ([0114] “alert”).
Regarding Claim 17:
Marino in view of Whitney teaches all of the elements of Claims 1. Marino does not specifically teach but Whitney teaches: (New) The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the product expiration management system is configured to analyze expiration-date data, location data, and historical usage data for the one or more products to predict whether one or more of the one or more products will expire prior to being used. ([0114] “the expired medication tracking 210 component offers simplified expired medication management that provides ease of internally supplying medications and diverting purchases to an internal supplier for medications approaching their expiration date. In an embodiment, the component provides an alert indicating the medications will expire soon. In an embodiment, the expired medication tracking 210 includes a neural network for optimizing inventory to further reduce expired medication waste. In an embodiment, this could include tracking the quantities expired, the value expired, generating inventory level suggestions” and see [0126] “The pharmaceutical procurement server 104 maintains historical records of shortage management and communications to allow for subsequent reference and utilization”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the system taught by Marino could be predictably improved by tracking the historical location and expiration dates of medications and using machine learning, as taught by Whitney to analyze locations and usage patterns in the historical data that indicate potential waste leading to the efficiencies of machine learning predictably providing earlier information and a faster response time to move the medications to a location with greater need.
Regarding Claim 18:
Marino in view of Whitney teaches all of the elements of Claims 1 and 17. Marino does not specifically teach but Whitney teaches: (New) The apparatus of claim 17, wherein the product expiration management system is configured to determine, based on the expiration-date data and the historical usage data, one or more next steps to be taken for each of the one or more products that is expired or near expiration. ([0114] “the expired medication tracking 210 component offers simplified expired medication management that provides ease of internally supplying medications and diverting purchases to an internal supplier for medications approaching their expiration date. In an embodiment, the component provides an alert indicating the medications will expire soon. In an embodiment, the expired medication tracking 210 includes a neural network for optimizing inventory to further reduce expired medication waste. In an embodiment, this could include tracking the quantities expired, the value expired, generating inventory level suggestions” and see [0126] “The pharmaceutical procurement server 104 maintains historical records of shortage management and communications to allow for subsequent reference and utilization”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the system taught by Marino could be predictably improved by tracking the historical location and expiration dates of medications and using machine learning, as taught by Whitney to analyze locations and usage patterns in the historical data that indicate potential waste leading to the efficiencies of machine learning predictably providing earlier information and a faster response time to move the medications to a location with greater need.
Regarding Claim 19:
Marino in view of Whitney teaches all of the elements of Claims 1 and 17-18. Marino also teaches: (New) The apparatus of claim 18, wherein the one or more next steps includes transmitting an alert to a consumer identifying the one or more next steps. ([0096] “Rapid recall task 233 may perform one or more processes that allow a user or business entity (e.g., retailer, item manufacturer, etc.) to trace items based on critical data, such as lot number, age, etc. Task 233 may determine and provide information about an item or items that may need to be removed from a shelf, or whose sales should be accelerated for other reasons. For example, certain types of items may have an associated expiration date determined by their manufacture, such as pharmaceuticals, health and beauty products, and perishable goods (e.g., foodstuffs)…Therefore, shrinkage task 233 may identify items that are approaching an expiration date and provide information to a user that indicate the expiration date condition”). Examiner notes that Whitney also teaches ([0114] “alert”).
Regarding Claim 20:
Marino in view of Whitney teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Marino also teaches: (New) The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more products comprise medical products stored at a consumer healthcare location, wherein the (product expiration management) system is configured to manage expiration of the medical products before use in a medical procedure. ([0007] “One use of smart shelves is to track medical supplies having RFID tags. Some medical supplies are extremely expensive, costing several thousand dollars per item. The medical supplies are often used at the medical facility, and their use may be billed to a particular patient”). Examiner is interpreting the phrase before use in a medical procedure as intended use and non-limiting. Examiner notes that Applicant recites an apparatus. The recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
As discussed with respect to Claim 1, Marino does not specifically teach a “product expiration management system” as now taught by Claim 1 nor teach product expiration management system (managing medical products) but Whitney in the same field of art, teaches this element: ([0114] “the expired medication tracking 210”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the system taught by Marino could be predictably improved by using a machine learning expired medication tracking system, as taught by Whitney, because the efficiencies of machine learning will predictably provide earlier information and a faster response time to move the medications to a location with greater need.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0046552 (Marino) in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0320470 (Whitney) in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2003/0216969 (Bauer).
Regarding Claim 8:
Marino in view of Whitney teaches all of the elements of Claims 1, 5 and 6. While Marino also teaches a server that obtains inventory information from a plurality of RFID cabinets, Marino does not specifically teach: (Currently Amended) The storage apparatus of claim 6, wherein the data obtained by the one or more of the plurality of RFID-enabled readers is provided to a manufacturer system and/or a distributor system. Bauer, in the same field of art, teaches this: ([0008] RFID tag technologies have been contemplated in providing distributed inventory management between a manufacturer and a retailer. For example, a manufacturer may be alerted through the Internet each time a product is sold at a retailer using the information stored in the product's RFID tag. The manufacturer may then use this information to forecast replenishment schedules with the retailer to prevent an out of stock situation” and [0096] “Rapid recall task 233 may perform one or more processes that allow a user or business entity (e.g., retailer, item manufacturer, etc.) to trace items based on critical data, such as lot number, age, etc. Task 233 may determine and provide information about an item or items that may need to be removed from a shelf, or whose sales should be accelerated for other reasons. For example, certain types of items may have an associated expiration date determined by their manufacture, such as pharmaceuticals, health and beauty products”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the medical supply cart that uses RFID antennas built into adjustable shelves to get inventory information for items on the shelves which it sends to an inventory control server, as taught by Marino, could be improved by including the product expiration date in the RFID data obtained by the medical supply cart and sending the expiration data also to an inventory control server that tracks the expiration dates, as taught by Bauer, because the cart taught by Marino contains medical supplies (see at least [0007]) and it is predictable that these items have expiration dates and predictable that it is important to track the expiration dates to avoid harm to the recipients from expired supplies, as taught by Bauer.
Regarding Claim 12:
Marino in view of Whitney teaches all of the elements of Claims 1, 5 and 6. While Marino also teaches a server that obtains inventory information from a plurality of RFID cabinets, Marino does not specifically teach: (Original) The apparatus of claim 6, wherein the one or more products affixed with the RFID tag are stored in a storage room. Bauer, in the same field of art, teaches this: ([0027] “stock room”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the medical supply cart that uses RFID antennas built into adjustable shelves to get inventory information for items on the shelves which it sends to an inventory control server, as taught by Marino, could be improved by including the product expiration date in the RFID data obtained by the medical supply cart and sending the expiration data also to an inventory control server that tracks the expiration dates, as taught by Bauer, because the cart taught by Marino contains medical supplies (see at least [0007]) and it is predictable that these items have expiration dates and predictable that it is important to track the expiration dates to avoid harm to the recipients from expired supplies, as taught by Bauer.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0046552 (Marino) in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0320470 (Whitney) in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0272746 (Ortiz).
Regarding Claim 9:
Marino in view of Whitney teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Marino does not specifically teach: The storage apparatus of claim 1, wherein one of the plurality of RFID-enabled readers is handheld. Ortiz, in the same field of art, teaches this: ([abstract] “A medical device inventory management system, including one or more radiofrequency identification (RFID) transponder or "tag" associated with one or more medical devices or attached to the medical device packaging. One or more RFID readers may be used, which may take the form of a handheld device or a shelf or shelving system for holding medical devices, or a handheld device may be used in conjunction with a shelving system”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the medical supply cart that uses RFID antennas built into adjustable shelves to get inventory information for items on the shelves which it sends to an inventory control server, as taught by Marino, could be improved by adding a handheld RFID reader to supplement the RFID reader antennas built into the shelves because of the complexity of reading RFID signals from tags on various types of items and the need to supplement the reading capability with supplementary reading devices with predictable results.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art is made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art further establishes the state of the art at the time of applicant’s application.
U.S Patent 10,268,945 (Keller) – this reference also teaches overlapping RFID antennas embedded into a shelf to count inventory (see at least [Column 11, lines 55-59] “the antennas may be positioned or tuned so that the fields 1118 generated by the antenna elements 1102 overlap, to prevent locations on the antenna embedded inventory shelf 1100 where an RFID tag is not readable by at least one antenna element 1102” and see [Column 9, line 1-24]).
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 KIMBERLY S BURSUM whose telephone number is (571)272-8213. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian (Ryan) m Zeender can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
/KIMBERLY S. BURSUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
