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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed January 8, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
Specification
Applicant is required to update the status (pending, allowed, etc.) of all parent priority applications in the first line of the specification. The status of all citations of US filed applications in the specification should also be updated where appropriate.
Information Disclosure Statement
An initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 filed March 13, 2025, is attached to the instant Office action.
Drawings
The following informality has been noted and requires correction in response to this Office Action. Since figures must be numbered separately, i.e. “Figure 1A,” “Figure 1B,” etc., Applicant is required to amend the Brief Description of the Drawings in Applicant’s disclosure accordingly to reflect the proper figure designations which are in formal drawings when drawings are submitted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, second paragraph
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. There does not appear to be an antecedent basis for “generating, by the one or more processors” the bolded language is repeated a couple of times but the only argument for processor would be to argue that “A computer-implemented method” could inherently include one which is a stretch. The dependent claims were included since they inherit the problem due to their dependency.
Clarification and/or correction are required.
Double patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,223,550 (Application 17/963,023). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application’s claims are broader than the Grandparent application/patent by eliminating the appointment scheduling step in the independent claims they are anticipated by this application’s claims. Since dependent claims are identical between the application and the patent they are also anticipated.
Application 19/013,644
U.S. Patent 12,223,550
1. A system for initiating offers for insurance based upon a medical diagnostic examination performed by a medical diagnostic provider on a person, the system comprising: one or more processors; a network interface configured to communicatively couple the system to a plurality of insurance provider computing systems for respective ones of a plurality of insurance providers; and one or more tangible, non-transitory memories storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors,
cause the system to: prior to requesting partial personal health information and prior to receiving a non-binding offer,
generate a health profile for the person based upon the results of the medical diagnostic examination completed for the person;
transmit, via the network interface, the health profile for the person to the plurality of insurance provider computing systems;
trigger generation, based upon the health profile, of a plurality of underwritten binding quotes for a plurality of insurance policy offers that the person is eligible for as a pre-approved potential insured party from the plurality of insurance providers by providing, using the network interface, the health profile for the person to the plurality of insurance provider computing systems associated with the plurality of insurance policy offers;
present, at a user interface, the plurality of underwritten binding quotes that are generated based upon the completion of the medical diagnostic examination for the person; and receive, at the user interface, a selection of one of the plurality of underwritten binding quotes.
1. A system comprising: one or more processors; a network interface configured to communicatively couple the system to a plurality of insurance provider computing systems for respective ones of a plurality of insurance providers; and one or more tangible, non-transitory memories storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors,
cause the system to: prior to requesting partial personal health information and prior to receiving a non-binding offer, schedule or set up an appointment for a person with a medical diagnostic provider for a medical diagnostic examination; generate a health profile for the person based upon the results of the medical diagnostic examination completed for the person;
transmit, via the network interface, the health profile for the person to the plurality of insurance provider computing systems;
trigger generation, based upon the health profile, of a plurality of underwritten binding quotes for a plurality of insurance policy offers that the person is eligible for as a pre-approved potential insured party from the plurality of insurance providers by providing, using the network interface, the health profile for the person to the plurality of insurance provider computing systems associated with the plurality of insurance policy offers;
present, at a user interface, the plurality of underwritten binding quotes that are generated based upon the completion of the medical diagnostic examination for the person; and receive, at the user interface, a selection of one of the plurality of underwritten binding quotes.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the system is operated and/or provided by a medical diagnostic provider that completed the medical diagnostic examination for the person.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the system is operated and/or provided by a medical diagnostic provider that completed the medical diagnostic examination for the person.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the system is operated and/or provided by an insurance provider and/or by an insurance procurer, the network interface communicatively connects the system to a computing system operated and/or provided by the medical diagnostic provider, and wherein the results of the person's medical diagnostic examination are stored at the medical diagnostic provider computing system.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the system is operated and/or provided by an insurance provider and/or by an insurance procurer, the network interface communicatively connects the system to a computing system operated and/or provided by the medical diagnostic provider, and wherein the results of the person's medical diagnostic examination are stored at the medical diagnostic provider computing system.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of insurance policy offers includes offers for at least one of a life insurance policy, a long-term care insurance policy, or a disability insurance policy.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of insurance policy offers includes offers for at least one of a life insurance policy, a long-term care insurance policy, or a disability insurance policy.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of insurance policy offers includes different types of insurance policies.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of insurance policy offers includes different types of insurance policies.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: provide, via the network interface, an indication that the one of the binding quotes has been selected to the respective insurance provider computing system.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: provide, via the network interface, an indication that the one of the binding quotes has been selected to the respective insurance provider computing system.
7. The system of claim 6, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: receive an indication that the one of the plurality of underwritten binding quotes has been bound by the respective insurance provider; and at least one of refund or credit to the person a cost of the medical diagnostic examination completed for the person upon receiving the indication that the one of the plurality of underwritten binding quotes has been bound.
7. The system of claim 6, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: receive an indication that the one of the plurality of underwritten binding quotes has been bound by the respective insurance provider; and at least one of refund or credit to the person a cost of the medical diagnostic examination completed for the person upon receiving the indication that the one of the plurality of underwritten binding quotes has been bound.
. The system of The system of wherein the plurality of underwritten binding quotes are determined based upon the health profile of the person and one or more preferred insurance policy terms from a group of terms comprising an amount of a premium payment, a term length, an insurance provider rating, a desired type of insurance, a payout amount, an annuity amount, a settlement option, and another insurance policy term, and wherein at least some of the members of the group of terms are defined by at least one of the person, an agent of the person, or the insurance provider.
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of underwritten binding quotes are determined based upon the health profile of the person and one or more preferred insurance policy terms from a group of terms comprising an amount of a premium payment, a term length, an insurance provider rating, a desired type of insurance, a payout amount, an annuity amount, a settlement option, and another insurance policy term, and wherein at least some of the members of the group of terms are defined by at least one of the person, an agent of the person, or the insurance provider.
9. The system of claim 1, wherein the medical diagnostic examination completed for the person includes at least one of (i) an invasive procedure, or (ii) is performed as part of an annual physical examination of the person.
9. The system of claim 1, wherein the medical diagnostic examination completed for the person includes at least one of (i) an invasive procedure, or (ii) is performed as part of an annual physical examination of the person.
10. The system of claim 1, wherein the generation of the plurality of underwritten binding quotes comprises an auction of the health profile of the person to the plurality of insurance provider computing systems.
10. The system of claim 1, wherein the generation of the plurality of underwritten binding quotes comprises an auction of the health profile of the person to the plurality of insurance provider computing systems.
A computer-implemented method for initiating offers for insurance based upon a medical diagnostic examination performed by a medical diagnostic provider on a person, the method comprising:
prior to requesting partial personal health information and prior to receiving a non- binding offer,
generating, by the one or more processors, a health profile for the person based upon the medical diagnostic examination performed by the medical diagnostic provider on the person; transmitting, by the one or more processors, the health profile for the person to a plurality of insurance provider computing systems that are operated and/or provided by a plurality of insurance providers; triggering generation, by the one or more processors and based upon the health profile for the person, of a plurality of underwritten binding quotes for a plurality of insurance policy offers that the person is eligible for as a pre-approved potential insured party from the plurality of insurance providers by providing the health profile for the person to the plurality of insurance provider computing systems associated with the plurality of insurance policy offers; presenting, at a user interface, the plurality of underwritten binding quotes that are generated based upon completion of the medical diagnostic examination on the person; and receiving, at the user interface, a selection of one of the plurality of underwritten binding quotes.
11. A computer-implemented method for initiating offers for insurance based upon a medical diagnostic examination performed by a medical diagnostic provider on a person, the method comprising:
prior to requesting partial personal health information and prior to receiving a non-binding offer, scheduling or setting up, via one or more processors, an appointment for the person with the medical diagnostic provider for the medical diagnostic examination;
generating, by the one or more processors, a health profile for the person based upon the medical diagnostic examination performed by the medical diagnostic provider on the person; transmitting, by the one or more processors, the health profile for the person to a plurality of insurance provider computing systems that are operated and/or provided by a plurality of insurance providers; triggering generation, by the one or more processors and based upon the health profile for the person, of a plurality of underwritten binding quotes for a plurality of insurance policy offers that the person is eligible for as a pre-approved potential insured party from the plurality of insurance providers by providing the health profile for the person to the plurality of insurance provider computing systems associated with the plurality of insurance policy offers; presenting, at a user interface, the plurality of underwritten binding quotes that are generated based upon completion of the medical diagnostic examination on the person; and receiving, at the user interface, a selection of one of the plurality of underwritten binding quotes.
12. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are included in a system operated and/or provided by the medical diagnostic provider that completed the medical diagnostic examination for the person.
12. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are included in a system operated and/or provided by the medical diagnostic provider that completed the medical diagnostic examination for the person.
13. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein the plurality of insurance policy offers includes offers for at least one of a life insurance policy, a long-term care insurance policy, or a disability insurance policy.
13. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein the plurality of insurance policy offers includes offers for at least one of a life insurance policy, a long-term care insurance policy, or a disability insurance policy.
14. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein the plurality of insurance policy offers includes different types of insurance policies.
14. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein the plurality of insurance policy offers includes different types of insurance policies.
15. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, further comprising: providing, via the network interface, an indication that the one of the plurality of underwritten binding quotes has been selected to the respective insurance provider computing system.
15. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, further comprising: providing, via the network interface, an indication that the one of the plurality of underwritten binding quotes has been selected to the respective insurance provider computing system.
16. The computer-implemented method of claim 15, further comprising: receiving an indication that the one of the plurality of underwritten binding quotes has been bound by the respective insurance provider; and at least one of refunding or crediting to the person a cost of the medical diagnostic examination completed for the person upon receiving the indication that the one of the plurality of underwritten binding quotes has been bound.
16. The computer-implemented method of claim 15, further comprising: receiving an indication that the one of the plurality of underwritten binding quotes has been bound by the respective insurance provider; and at least one of refunding or crediting to the person a cost of the medical diagnostic examination completed for the person upon receiving the indication that the one of the plurality of underwritten binding quotes has been bound.
17. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, further comprising providing, to the insurance provider computing systems, one or more preferred insurance policy terms in conjunction with the health profile of the person, wherein the insurance provider computing systems generate the plurality of underwritten binding quotes based upon the one or more preferred insurance policy terms.
17. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, further comprising providing, to the insurance provider computing systems, one or more preferred insurance policy terms in conjunction with the health profile of the person, wherein the insurance provider computing systems generate the plurality of underwritten binding quotes based upon the one or more preferred insurance policy terms.
18. The computer-implemented method of The computer-implemented method of wherein the one or more preferred insurance policy terms include at least one of an amount of a premium payment, a term length, an insurance provider rating, a desired type of insurance, a payout amount, an annuity amount, a settlement option, or another insurance policy term; and wherein at least one of the one or more preferred insurance policy terms is defined by at least one of the person, an agent of the person, or the insurance provider.
18. The computer-implemented method of claim 17, wherein the one or more preferred insurance policy terms include at least one of an amount of a premium payment, a term length, an insurance provider rating, a desired type of insurance, a payout amount, an annuity amount, a settlement option, or another insurance policy term; and wherein at least one of the one or more preferred insurance policy terms is defined by at least one of the person, an agent of the person, or the insurance provider.
19. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein the medical diagnostic examination performed on the person includes at least one of (i) an invasive procedure, or (ii) is performed as part of an annual physical examination of the person.
19. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein the medical diagnostic examination performed on the person includes at least one of (i) an invasive procedure, or (ii) is performed as part of an annual physical examination of the person.
20. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, further comprising selecting the plurality of insurance providers based upon the health profile of the person and/or one or more types of insurance.
20. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, further comprising selecting the plurality of insurance providers based upon the health profile of the person and/or one or more types of insurance.
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.
3. Claims 1–20 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.
In sum, claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 11–20) and a machine (claims 1–10) where the machine is substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of initiating offers for insurance based upon a medical diagnostic examination performed by a medical diagnostic provider on a person, the method comprising:
prior to requesting partial personal health information and prior to receiving a non- binding offer, generating, by the one or more processors, a health profile for the person based upon the medical diagnostic examination performed by the medical diagnostic provider on the person;
transmitting, by the one or more processors, the health profile for the person to a plurality of insurance provider computing systems that are operated and/or provided by a plurality of insurance providers;
triggering generation, by the one or more processors and based upon the health profile for the person, of a plurality of underwritten binding quotes for a plurality of insurance policy offers that the person is eligible for as a pre-approved potential insured party from the plurality of insurance providers by providing the health profile for the person to the plurality of insurance provider computing systems associated with the plurality of insurance policy offers;
presenting, at a user interface, the plurality of underwritten binding quotes that are generated based upon completion of the medical diagnostic examination on the person; and
receiving, at the user interface, a selection of one of the plurality of underwritten binding quotes.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions (e.g., initiating offers for insurance).
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “processor” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.). Independent claim 1 is nearly identical to independent claim 11 so the analysis for claim 11 also applies to claim 1.
Dependent claims 2–10, and 12–20 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 2 and 12 are substantially similarly and recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 11 as they describe a system operated and/or provided by the medical diagnostic provider that completed the medical diagnostic examination for the person. Dependent claim 3 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as it describes wherein the system is operated and/or provided by an insurance provider and/or by an insurance procurer, the network interface communicatively connects the system to a computing system operated and/or provided by the medical diagnostic provider, and wherein the results of the person's medical diagnostic examination are stored at the medical diagnostic provider computing system. Which is data gathering which is insignificant extra-solution activity therefore not something more. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 (g).) Dependent claims 4 and 13 are substantially similar and recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 11 as they describe wherein the plurality of insurance policy offers includes offers for at least one of a life insurance policy, a long-term care insurance policy, or a disability insurance policy. Dependent claims 5 and 14 are substantially similar and both recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 11 as they describe wherein the plurality of insurance policy offers includes different types of insurance policies. Dependent claims 6 and 15 are substantially similar and both recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 11 as they describe providing, via the network interface, an indication that the one of the plurality of underwritten binding quotes has been selected to the respective insurance provider computing system. Which is data gathering which is insignificant extra-solution activity therefore not something more. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 (g).) Dependent claims 7 and 16 are substantially similar and both recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 11 as they describe receiving an indication that the one of the plurality of underwritten binding quotes has been bound by the respective insurance provider; and at least one of refunding or crediting to the person a cost of the medical diagnostic examination completed for the person upon receiving the indication that the one of the plurality of underwritten binding quotes has been bound. Giving a refund as part of sale would be marketing activity. Dependent claim 17 recites limitations further define the abstract idea noted in claim 11 as it describes providing, to the insurance provider computing systems, one or more preferred insurance policy terms in conjunction with the health profile of the person, wherein the insurance provider computing systems generate the plurality of underwritten binding quotes based upon the one or more preferred insurance policy terms. Dependent claims 8 and 18 are substantially similarly and both recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 11 as they describe wherein the one or more preferred insurance policy terms include at least one of an amount of a premium payment, a term length, an insurance provider rating, a desired type of insurance, a payout amount, an annuity amount, a settlement option, or another insurance policy term; and wherein at least one of the one or more preferred insurance policy terms is defined by at least one of the person, an agent of the person, or the insurance provider. Dependent claims 9 and 19 are substantially similar and both recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 11 as they describe wherein the medical diagnostic examination performed on the person includes at least one of (i) an invasive procedure, or (ii) is performed as part of an annual physical examination of the person. Dependent claims 10 and 20 are substantially similar and recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 11 as it describes selecting the plurality of insurance providers based upon the health profile of the person and/or one or more types of insurance.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
Prior Art
The best prior art is Kemp et al. (USPG 2014/0172,466 A1) and Snell et al. (USPG 2003/0233,260 A1) which teach creating a marketplace for insurance using data from medical files to be sent to multiple insurance companies to bid on customer’s insurance needs based on their medical results. But they are not explicit about the bids being for pre-approved offers and the sharing being done by a health profile rather than the customer’s health records.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Scott S. Trotter, whose telephone number is 571-272-7366. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, M-F.
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, Matthew Gart, can be reached on 571-272-3955.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are as follows:
(571) 273-8300 (Official Communications; including After Final Communications labeled “BOX AF”)
(571) 273-7366 (Draft Communications)
/SCOTT S TROTTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696