DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Each of the claim(s) has/have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 1 includes limitations directed towards "1. A board game for providing entertainment comprising: a plurality of dice, a plurality of player chips, a plurality of playing cards, a plurality of player chips and at least two 2-sided flex game board mats."
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Claim 2 includes limitations directed towards "2. The board game of claim 1 wherein said plurality of dice is comprised of a set of three 6- sided bonus dice and a set of three 12-sided dice."
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Claim 3 includes limitations directed towards "3. The board game of claim 2 wherein said set of three 6-sided bonus dice is configured to include commands on each side of said set of three 6-sided bonus dice."
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Claim 4 includes limitations directed towards "4. The board game of claim 2 wherein said set of three 12-sided bonus dice is configured to include commands on each side of said set of three 12-sided bonus dice."
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Claim 5 includes limitations directed towards "5. The board game of claim 1 wherein said plurality of dice is further designed with various colors to differentiate between said set of three 6-sided dice and set of three 12-sided dice."
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Claim 6 includes limitations directed towards "6. The board game of claim 1 wherein said plurality of player chips further comprises a plurality of bank player chips and a plurality of play debt player chips."
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Claim 7 includes limitations directed towards "7. The board game of claim 1 wherein said plurality of playing cards is comprised of at least one deck of vault cards."
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Claim 8 includes limitations directed towards "8. The board game of claim 6 wherein said plurality of play debt player chips further comprises "WIPE DEBT 1" on both sides of the play debt player chips."
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Claim 9 includes limitations directed towards "9. The board game of claim 6 wherein said plurality of bank player chips is configured to include an image of cash and a dollar symbol sign on both sides of the bank player chips."
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Claim 10 includes limitations directed towards "10. A board game play method comprising the steps of a. providing at least two participating players with a plurality of player chips, b. providing at least two participating players with a plurality of player dice, c. providing at least two participating players with a plurality of vault cards, d. providing a flex game board mat to the participating players, e. allowing each player to roll a plurality of player dice, f. each player following the labeled commands on the plurality of player dice, g. allowing each player to pull from a plurality of vault cards h. allowing players to exchange game pieces with other players as commanded, i. repeating steps [e] through [i] until a player is left with the last remaining said plurality of player chips after all other players have no said player chips. "
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Claim 10 includes limitations directed towards "a plurality of player chips"
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Claim 11 includes limitations directed towards "11 The board game play method of Claim 10, further comprising: steps [a]-[i] until all said player chips are collected by a single player and the single player is declared the winner."
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Accordingly, each of the claim(s) recited above recite an abstract idea.
Further, the dependent claim(s), if present, merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Prong Two Considerations
This/these judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application because the examiner does not find one of the following to exist:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Furthermore, limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of the claims indicated above (and their respective dependent Claims) is/are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims indicated above (and their respective dependent claims) do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do the additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the above identified claim(s) (and their respective dependent claims) is/are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Moreover, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea wherein if computer elements are claimed they are additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea(s) identified above (and their respective dependent claims) is/are not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, each of the claims identified above (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of the claim(s) indicated above (or their dependents) include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the additional elements in the claim(s) identified above (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements (if any are present) nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Prong Two Considerations (as indicated above) are not met and the examiner does not find a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to exist in the claim(s) to render the claim(s) significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, none of the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the claim(s) indicated above (and their dependent claims) are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
The notations noted below apply to all rejections: In as much structure set forth by the applicant in the claims, the device is capable of use in the intended manner if so desired (See MPEP 2112). It should be noted that a 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, it meets the claim limitations. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The intended use defined in the preamble and body of the claim breathes no life and meaning structurally different than that of the applied reference.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barshinger (US 6471209 B1) in view of Dotson (US 20070194529 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Barshinger teaches 1. A board game for providing entertainment comprising: a plurality of dice, a plurality of player chips, a plurality of playing cards, and at least two 2-sided flex game board mats. See Fig. 1; (1:55+)(2:4+); (22)(11)(18).
Dotson does teach what the primary reference is silent on including a plurality of player chips See (42) which more clearly shows the player pieces in chip form.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Barshinger with Dotson to allow the pieces to be easily removed from storage (due to their curved shaped in place of jagged edges). Additionally, reference In Re Harza where it was held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.04 VI B) As such, the use of two flex game boards in view of a single flex game board is not seen to create a new and unexpected result that would provide a patentable advance if the prior are were found to not reading on these limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Barshinger teaches 2. The board game of claim 1 wherein said plurality of dice is comprised of a set of three 6- sided bonus dice and a set of three 12-sided dice. See Fig. 1 and 2 which shows a plurality of die. The number of sides and/or the number of dice is considered an obvious variant to the Barshinger game.
Regarding claim 3, Barshinger teaches 3. The board game of claim 2 wherein said set of three 6-sided bonus dice is configured to include commands on each side of said set of three 6-sided bonus dice. See Fig. 1 and 2 which shows a plurality of die. The indicia on the die are not considered to provide a new and unobvious functional relationship with the substrate to provide a patentable advance over the prior art. Additionally, the courts held that "Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability….[T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate." (See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Regarding claim 4, Barshinger teaches 4. The board game of claim 2 wherein said set of three 12-sided bonus dice is configured to include commands on each side of said set of three 12-sided bonus dice. See Fig. 1 and 2 which shows a plurality of die. The indicia on the die is not considered to provide a new and unobvious functional relationship with the substrate to provide a patentable advance over the prior art. Additionally, the courts held that "Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability….[T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate." (See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Regarding claim 5, Barshinger teaches 5. The board game of claim 1 wherein said plurality of dice is further designed with various colors to differentiate between said set of three 6-sided dice and set of three 12-sided dice. See Fig. 1 and 2; 2:42+ which shows a plurality of die. The citation discloses the color coding of the die. The use of the color coding is the intended use of the substrate which does not patentably differentiate over the cited prior art of record. Additionally, reference In re Seid, where the court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
Regarding claim 6, Dotson teaches 6. The board game of claim 1 wherein said plurality of player chips further comprises a plurality of bank player chips and a plurality of play debt player chips. See (42) which more clearly shows the player pieces in chip form. The labeling or use of the chips such as a bank player chip or a debt player chip is not seen to provide a patentable advance over the cited prior art of record.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Barshinger with Dotson to allow the pieces to be easily removed from storage (due to their curved shaped in place of jagged edges).
Regarding claim 7, Barshinger teaches 7. The board game of claim 1 wherein said plurality of playing cards is comprised of at least one deck of vault cards. See Fig. 1 which shows the deck of cards on the playing board. The use of the cards as vault cards or other type of cards is seen to be directed towards the intended use of the cards or the indica on the cards which does not provide patentable distinction over the cited prior art of record.
Regarding claim 8, Dotson teaches 8. The board game of claim 6 wherein said plurality of play debt player chips further comprises "WIPE DEBT 1" on both sides of the play debt player chips. See (42) which more clearly shows the player pieces in chip form. The labeling or use of the chips such as a bank player chip or a debt player chip is not seen to provide a patentable advance over the cited prior art of record. This includes the "wipe debt" type of chip.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Barshinger with Dotson to allow the pieces to be easily removed from storage (due to their curved shaped in place of jagged edges).
Regarding claim 9, Dotson teaches 9. The board game of claim 6 wherein said plurality of bank player chips is configured to include an image of cash and a dollar symbol sign on both sides of the bank player chips. See (42) which more clearly shows the player pieces in chip form. The labeling or use of the chips such as a bank player chip or a debt player chip is not seen to provide a patentable advance over the cited prior art of record. .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Barshinger with Dotson to allow the pieces to be easily removed from storage (due to their curved shaped in place of jagged edges).
Regarding claim 10, Barshinger teaches 10. A board game play method comprising the steps of a. providing at least two participating players with a plurality of player chips, b. providing at least two participating players with a plurality of player dice, c. providing at least two participating players with a plurality of vault cards, d. providing a flex game board mat to the participating players, e. allowing each player to roll a plurality of player dice, f. each player following the labeled commands on the plurality of player dice, g. allowing each player to pull from a plurality of vault cards h. allowing players to exchange game pieces with other players as commanded, i. repeating steps [e] through [i] until a player is left with the last remaining said plurality of player chips after all other players have no said player chips. See Fig. 1; (1:55+)(2:4+); (22)(11)(18) the method of play is considered obvious in view of Fig. 1 and the disclosure. Altering the rules of game play is not seen to provide a patentable advance over the prior art. The variants to the play of the game are considered well within the range of obvious variants to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Dotson does teach what the primary reference is silent on including a plurality of player chips See (42) which more clearly shows the player pieces in chip form.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Barshinger with Dotson to allow the pieces to be easily removed from storage (due to their curved shaped in place of jagged edges). Additionally, reference In Re Harza where it was held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.04 VI B) As such, the use of two flex game boards in view of a single flex game board is not seen to create a new and unexpected result that would provide a patentable advance if the prior are were found to not reading on these limitations.
Regarding claim 11, Barshinger teaches 11 The board game play method of Claim 10, further comprising: steps [a]-[i] until all said player chips are collected by a single player and the single player is declared the winner. See Fig. 1 The rules for as to how the game ends is similarly considered obvious variants to the rules of playing a game and well within the obviousness scope of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues against the rejection under 35 USC 101. The arguments are directed towards the claims being directed towards tangible physical invention such as a specific board game apparatus and method of using it and not the rules of a game. However, tangible items are directed towards the a game which is inclusive of the abstract idea of as cited in the 101 rejection above. Although physical items are included in the claimed limitations, the items are general in nature not providing specific to a particular machine or significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, one can reference MPEP 2106.05(b) and Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 40 USPQ 199 (1939). In this case, a mathematical formula was employed to use standing wave phenomena in an antenna system. The claim recited the particular type of antenna and included details as to the shape of the antenna and the conductors, particularly the length and angle at which they were arranged. 306 U.S. at 95-96; 40 USPQ at 203. Another example is Eibel Process, in which gravity (a law of nature or natural phenomenon) was applied by a Fourdrinier machine (which was understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web. Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923). In the above cases, the particular machine was such that it was required for the inventive concept and specifically unique to not be claimed in an overly general manner. For example the specific shape, type, length and angle of the antenna which was required to achieve the inventive concept instead of generally claiming an antenna. In contrast to the instant invention, a board game for providing entertainment isn’t a specific antenna system using a mathematical formula to use standing wave phenomena but instead a generally recited board game. The specific structure included in the claims are generally recited and are used to play a different board game of which a new board game can be arbitrarily devised if desired. The new board game isn’t one that utilizes a specific mathematical formula based on scientific principals to advance the technological field, but a board game which could be arbitrarily created if desired.
The applicant argues that the cited art of record is silent with regards to “at least two 2-sided flex game board mats”. However, Additionally, reference In Re Harza where it was held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.04 VI B) As such, the use of two flex game boards in view of a single flex game board is not seen to create a new and unexpected result that would provide a patentable advance if the prior are were found to not reading on these limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0503. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11am - 7pm CST.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3711