DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claim(s) filed on 09/23/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not
patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg,
140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d
2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Langi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van
Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619
(CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR l.32I(c) or l.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717. 02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP
§ § 706.02(1)(1) - 706.02(1)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR l.32l(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used.
Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or
PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal
Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-inf o-1.js p.
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of App. 18120161 (Pat US 11915815), App. 18459646, App. 18400421 (Pat. US 12230383), App. 19055330, App/ 19285,693, App. 19326286, and Claim 11 of App 18752294 (Pat. US 12614622). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed toward addressing a similar scope. The table/chart below exhibits the similarity* between the independent claims while at least claim 1 of the current application ‘592 may recite a narrower variation to some of the claims of the reference Applications mentioned.
* Similarities highlighted in BOLD
App No. 19285592 (Current App.) Claim 1
App No. 18120161 (Ref. App.) – Claim 1
App No. 18459646 (Ref. App.) – Claim 1
App No. 18400421 (Ref. App.) – Claim 1
App No. 18752294 (Ref. App.) – Claim 11
App No. 19055330 (Ref. App.) – Claim 1
App No. 19285,693 (Ref. App.) – Claim 1
App No. 19326286 (Ref. App.) – Claim 1
A smart exercise device, comprising:
A computer-implemented system, comprising
A system, comprising:
A computer-implemented system, comprising
A system, comprising:
A computer-implemented system, comprising
A treadmill, comprising: a pair of rollers; a belt coupled to and extending between the pair of rollers, wherein the belt encircles a support platform suspended between the pair of rollers; a motor operatively coupled to one of the pair of rollers to rotate the one of the pair of rollers such that rotation of the rollers causes the belt to rotate around the support platform suspended between the pair of rollers
an interface comprising a smart mirror configured to present information pertaining to a treatment plan being performed by a user while the user interacts with the smart exercise device;
an elliptical machine configured to be manipulated by a user while the user performs a treatment plan; and
an elliptical machine configured to be manipulated by a user;
one or more processing devices configured to
a processing device configured to
one or more processing devices configured to
a processing device configured to
at least one processing device configured to
a processing device configured to:
one or more processing devices configured to:
one or more processing devices configured to:
receive a plurality of risk factors associated with at least one of a cardiac condition and a cardiac outcome for the user
receive a plurality of risk factors associated with at least one of a cardiac condition and a cardiac outcome for a user,
receive a plurality of risk factors associated with a cardiac-related event for a user,
receive a plurality of risk factors associated with a cardiac-related event for the user
receive a plurality of risk factors associated with a cardiac-related event for a user
receive a plurality of risk factors associated with at least one of a cardiac condition and a cardiac outcome for a user
receive a plurality of risk factors associated with at least one of a cardiac condition and a cardiac outcome for a user,
generate a selected set of the risk factors
generate a selected set of the risk factors
generate a selected set of the risk factors
generate a selected set of the risk factors
generate a selected set of the risk factors
generate a selected set of the risk factors
generate a selected set of the risk factors
determine, based on the selected set of the risk factors, a probability that a cardiac intervention will occur
determine, based on the selected set of the risk factors, a probability that a cardiac intervention will occur
determine, based on the selected set of the risk factors, a probability that a cardiac intervention will occur
determine, based on the selected set of the risk factors, a probability that a cardiac intervention will occur
determine, based on the selected set of the risk factors, a probability that a cardiac intervention will occur,
determine, based on a selected set of risk factors a probability that a cardiac intervention will occur,
determine, based on the selected set of the risk factors, a probability that a cardiac- related intervention will occur
determine, based on the selected set of the risk factors, a probability of a cardiac intervention
generate, based on the probability and the selected set of the risk factors, the treatment plan, wherein the treatment plan includes one or more exercises directed to reducing the probability that the cardiac intervention will occur, and to facilitate conformity with the treatment plan
generate, based on the probability and the selected set of the risk factors, a treatment plan including one or more exercises directed to reducing the probability that the cardiac intervention will occur
generate, based on the probability and the selected set of the risk factors, a treatment plan including one or more exercises directed to reducing the probability that the cardiac intervention will occur
generate, based on the probability and the selected set of the risk factors, the treatment plan including one or more exercises directed to reducing the probability that the cardiac intervention will occur
generate, based on the probability and the selected set of the risk factors, a treatment plan including one or more exercises directed to reducing the probability that the cardiac intervention will occur
generate, based on the probability and the selected set of the risk factors, a treatment plan including one or more exercises directed to reducing the probability that the cardiac intervention will occur.
generate, based on the probability and the selected set of the risk factors, a treatment plan including one or more exercises directed to reducing the probability that the cardiac-related intervention will occur
generate, based on the probability and the selected set of the risk factors, a treatment plan to be performed by the user while the user interacts with the treadmill, wherein the treatment plan includes one or more exercises directed to reducing the probability of the cardiac intervention, and control, based on the treatment plan, the treadmill to at least one of (i) actuate the motor to adjust a speed of the treadmill and (ii) adjust an incline of the belt.
control, based on the treatment plan, operation of at least one physical component of an electromechanical machine, wherein the operation is controlled by modifying one or more operating parameters associated with the at least one physical component
treatment apparatus configured to implement the treatment plan while the treatment apparatus is being manipulated by the user
The electromechanical machine configured to implement the treatment plan while the electromechanical machine is being manipulated by the user.
a rowing machine configured to implement the treatment plan while the rowing machine is being manipulated by the user,
wherein subsequent to implementing the treatment plan using the rowing machine, the at least one processing device is configured to modify the treatment plan based on a determination of whether the treatment plan reduced either one of(i) the probability that the cardiac intervention will occur and (ii) the identified one of the selected set of the risk factors
a stair-climbing machine configured to implement the treatment plan while the stair- climbing machine is being manipulated by the user
cause the smart mirror to display a visual cue in response to a deviation of the user from at least one of a desired body posture, a range of motion, a joint or limb angle, and a motion defined by the treatment plan, wherein the visual cue includes at least one of (i) highlighting, changing a color of, or outlining a body part of the user that is deviating from the treatment plan, (ii) encircling the body part of the user that is deviating from the treatment plan, and (iii) displaying a line indicating an axis of the body part and an axis corresponding to a desired form for the body part defined by the treatment plan.
As per the above chart, it shows the similarities between the current application ‘592 and reference Applications mentioned above, in bold, with independent claims of the reference as such the reference(s) application(s) may exhibit a broader and more generic than the current application as such the current application is the species and the reference(s) is the genus. Thus, this is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-13 are drawn to a device/system and Claims 14-20 are drawn to a method, which are within the four statutory categories (i.e., a machine and a process). Claims 1-20 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claimed invention represents an abstract idea of a series of steps that recite a process for assessing cardiovascular health and treatment plan. Interacting with a device during a treatment plan for receiving cardiac health risk factors to determine probability for cardiac intervention which are steps that is/are an abstract idea that could have been performed by a human actor interacting with a system/interface to implement the abstract idea performing the steps of receiving, determining, generating, which both the instant claims and the abstract idea are defined as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (managing personal behavior or interactions).
Independent claim 1, and similarly claim 14, recites the step of:
“an interface comprising a smart mirror configured to present information pertaining to a treatment plan being performed by a user while the user interacts with the smart exercise device; one or more processing device, configured to:
receive a plurality of risk factors associated with at least one of a cardiac condition and a cardiac outcome for the user
generate a selected set of the risk factors,
determine, based on the selected set of the risk factors, a probability that a cardiac intervention will occur,
generate, based on the probability and the selected set of the risk factors, the treatment plan, wherein the treatment plan includes one or more exercises directed to reducing the probability that the cardiac intervention will occur,
to facilitate conformity with the treatment plan, cause the smart mirror to display a visual cue in response to a deviation of the user from at least one of a desired body posture, a range of motion, a joint or limb angle, and a motion defined by the treatment plan, wherein the visual cue includes at least one of (i) highlighting, changing a color of, or outlining a body part of the user that is deviating from the treatment plan, (ii) encircling the body part of the user that is deviating from the treatment plan, and (iii) displaying a line indicating an axis of the body part and an axis corresponding to a desired form for the body part defined by the treatment plan.”
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations by a human user/actor interaction with computing device(s) that constitute Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity along with Mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer/hardware components. For example, the limitations encompass a user the ability to receive risk factors associated with cardiac health, determine probability for cardiac intervention based on selected risk factors, and generating treatment plan reducing the probability, which are steps that that could have been performed by a human actor organizing and managing a user treatment/exercise using generic computing/hardware components implement the abstract idea. These limitations encompass activity of a single person or multiple people and interacting with computer/hardware components to perform the steps of the claimed invention for managing healthcare facility resources, which constitutes Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Accordingly, the claim limitations (in BOLD) recite an abstract idea. Any limitations not identified above as part of the process are deemed "additional elements," and will be discussed in further detail below.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas, linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., as implemented by one or more hardware processors configured to execute specific instructions stored in the memory). In particular, the claims recite the additional elements such as “smart mirror, smart exercise device, processing device, interface” that is/are disclosed at a high - level of generality and includes known hardware components that implements the identified abstract idea, (see, Applicant, para [1332-1352]). This recitation of additional elements, “e.g., processor, smart mirror/exercise device, etc.” to perform the noted steps, such as “present information ..., display[ing] visual cue...”, is/are merely implemented as a tool such that it amounts no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and is/are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer because the steps reciting additional elements that are mere data implemented using a general purpose computing/hardware components being used in ordinary capacity to perform the steps such that causing the smart mirror interface and processing device to perform the instructions, see MPEP 2106.05(f), serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. smart mirror/exercise device), see MPEP 2106.05(h), and mere data gathering that does not add a meaningful limitation to the above abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, looking at the claims as a whole, individually and in combination, these additional elements provide no integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application because they appear to merely automate a manual process, such that no meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea are introduced and the computing elements are merely utilized as tools to perform the abstract ideas. The claim as a whole is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2B, The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception because, as mentioned above, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components, recited at a high level of generality, that amount to no more than mere instruction to perform the abstract idea such that it amounts no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to apply the exception using generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f), serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. smart mirror/exercise device), see MPEP 2106.05(h), and mere data gathering that does not add a meaningful limitation to the above abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(d). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 ("mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."). The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-13 and 15-20, include all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 and 14, and therefore likewise incorporate the above-described abstract idea. While the depending claims add additional limitations, such as:
As for claims 3-4, 8, 10, 13, and 16, the claim(s) recite limitations that are under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim(s) that covers performance by a human interaction constituting Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity along with mental process but for, the recitation of the generic computer components which are similarly rejected because, neither of the claims, further, defined the abstract idea and do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
As for claims 2, 5-7, 9, 11-12, 15, and 17-20, the claim(s) recite limitations that are under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim(s) that covers performance by a human interaction constituting Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity along with mental process but for, the recitation of the generic computer components which are similarly rejected because, neither of the claims, further, defined the abstract idea and do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite additional elements such as “smart mirror, smart exercise device, processing device, fitness mirror, stair-climbing machine, elliptical machine, treadmill, rowing machine, cycling machine, machine learning model” recited in the claim(s) at a high level to perform the claims steps (e.g., cause[ing]). These additional elements have been interpreted to be computing components with a general - purpose processor, that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to perform the abstract idea such that it amounts no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to apply the exception using generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f), that is merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and a mere data gathering process that does not add a meaningful limitation to the above abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(d). Thus, the judicial exceptions recited in claims is/are not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 09/23/2026 have been fully considered by the Examiner and addressed as the following:
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that:
Applicant's arguments with respect to the Double Patent rejection on page 8.
On page 8 of the remarks, Applicant stated that a concurrent filling of a terminal disclaimer over the mentioned above DP Application(s)/Patent(s), however nothing was received to date of this OA. Therefore, double patent rejection remains.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection on page 9-13.
On page 9 of the remarks, the Applicant argues “Applicant's claims at most merely involve an exception and can only be alleged to recite an abstract idea when considered at too high a level of abstraction ... claim 1 recites a smart exercise device comprising a smart mirror and one or more processing devices configured to...”, Examiner respectfully disagree. Examiner asserts that the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation for the purpose of determining whether they encompass a judicial exception. The claim(s) limitations are directed towards generating treatment plan reciting, under BRI, steps for receiving user cardiac risk factors, determining probability of a cardiac intervention will occur, generate treatment plan, and display information for facilitating the treatment plan which are steps of Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity managing personal behavior, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
The claim(s) recite additional elements, e.g., smart exercise device, smart mirror, processor, recited as a generic hardware/computer to do what any standard device such as smartphone or laptop screen already does (e.g., “displaying information on a screen of a user device”), and to perform the identified abstract steps while linking to a technological environment which is a mere instruction(s) that may be performed by human that it amounts no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) and does not make the core idea non-abstract.
On page 10-11 of the remarks, the Applicant argues “only certain, explicitly listed methods of organizing human activity are considered to be abstract ideas, and the limitations of claim 1 are not analogous to any of the examples of this category of abstract ideas listed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).11.C.... Applicant notes that all of these examples simply correspond to instructions or rules that are meant to be relayed to a human and then performed by the human ... claim 1 include performing functions that are not performed by a human, including, inter alia, causing, by one or more processing devices, a smart mirror to display a visual cue... Nonetheless, even if one or more limitations could be implemented by a human (which Applicant denies), there is no rule, ... None of the claims of the present application are directed to organizing human activity”, Examiner respectfully disagree. While the MPEP listed some examples demonstrating methods of organizing human activity, documentary evidence is not required to establish that an abstract idea is recited in the claim. Numerous court cases (Alice, Bilski, Diehr, Flook, Benson) did not rely on evidence to find the claims to be directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Moreover, Applicant argues that the examples listed correspond to instructions to be performed by a human, Examiner finds the Applicant argument is invalid since all examples and similarly Claim 1 of the instant application are relayed on process/steps that can be performed by a human to define the abstract idea but for the use of hardware components performing a generic and known function(s), i.e., displaying.
Additionally, while claim 1 recites steps, under BRI, receiving user cardiac risk factors, determining probability of a cardiac intervention will occur, generate treatment plan, and display information which is process for diagnosing and generating a treatment that is a process following rules and/or instructions, the claim steps also is monitoring the user performance of the treatment plan which is also falls under behavior management.
On page 11-12 of the remarks, the Applicant argues “Third, even if, arguendo, the claims can be considered to recite a judicial exception, these claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application ... Here, using one or more processing devices to perform steps to generate a treatment plan and cause a smart mirror to display a visual cue in accordance with the treatment plan in the manner recited imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Accordingly, the claim recites specific improvements to a smart exercise device comprising a smart mirror, and in particular, improvements to the presentation of information pertaining to a treatment plan being performed by a user”, Examiner respectfully disagree. As described in the rejection above, the claim(s) does/do not describe a particular improvement of computer’s functionality or a technical field, rather using additional elements, “e.g., processor, smart mirror”, recited as a generic hardware/computer to perform the identified abstract steps such as obtaining, analyzing, determining, and displaying information through leveraging computing hardware technology in a well understood manner however improving upon an abstract idea does not make the abstract idea any less abstract. In light of the Alice decision and the guidance provided in the 2019 PEG, the features listed in the claims, are not considered an improvement to another technology or technical field, or an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself rather describes an improvement to generating and monitoring treatment plan, which is solving a health facility and patient administrative problem, using computers.
In addition, by relying on computing devices to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 "use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions" is not an inventive concept). Therefore, even when considering the claims additional elements, the claims as a whole, individually and in combination, provide no integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application that no meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea are introduced, see MPEP 2106. The claims as a whole are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
On page 12 of the remarks, the Applicant argues “Thus, Applicant's claims recite additional elements beyond any judicial exception that, at least in combination, integrate the alleged exception into a practical application because the additional elements reflect, for example, "an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field... the claims provide specific improvements over prior systems and recite additional elements that "apply[] or use[] the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological...”, Examiner respectfully disagree. As described above, the claim(s) recite steps that have been identified as an abstract in addition the claim recite additional elements, e.g., smart exercise device, smart mirror, processor, recited as a generic hardware/computer to perform the identified abstract steps while linking to a technological environment which is a mere instruction(s) that may be performed by human that it amounts no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) and does not make the core idea non-abstract. There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other. There is nothing, for example, in the pending claims to suggest that the claimed functions applied by said elements, e.g., processors and exercise device, smart mirror, are somehow made more efficient or that the manner in which these elements carry out their basic functions is otherwise improved in any way. The alleged advantages that Applicants tout do not concern an improvement in computer capabilities but instead relate to an alleged improvement in determining generation and monitoring of treatment plan, for which a computer is used as a tool in its ordinary capacity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, the Examiner has addressed the Applicant argument(s) and found this argument is not found to be persuasive. Hence, Examiner remains the 101 rejections of claims which have been updated to address Applicant's amendments.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAAELDIN ELSHAER whose telephone number is (571)272-8284. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
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, MAMON OBEID can be reached at Mamon.Obeid@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/ALAAELDIN M. ELSHAER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
