DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
After the amendments filed 07/15/2026, claims 18 and 38-56 remaining pending, of which 18, 46, and 53 were amended.
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 18 and 38-56 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. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 18 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Independent claims 46 and 53, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
18. A basketball training system comprising:
one or more processors; and
a computer-readable storage medium coupled to the one or more processors having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
analyzing performance data for one or more users, the performance data including shooting percentage data and shooting form data (Mental Processes);
presenting a user interface having a portion of an image of a basketball court (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
providing a drill prompt at the user interface, the drill prompt including one or more recommended drills based on analyzing the performance data for the one or more users (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
receiving one or more inputs through the user interface that provides the drill prompt (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
generating a drill for the user based on the received one or more user inputs received through the user interface that provides the drill prompt (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes); and
controlling the basketball training system to execute the drill by launching basketballs toward the user according to the drill.
The limitations in claim 18 (as well as claims 46 and 43) recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., one or more processors, a computer-readable storage media, a ball thrower, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity.
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Mental Processes include concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion); and
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
1. Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices (including hedging (i.e., wagering), insurance, mitigating risk);
2. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
3. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping.
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
A. Following rules and/or instructions, such as including the functions related to the playing of a game, which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. These sets of rules are interpreted as at least certain methods of organized human activity insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing or following the set of rules or instructions concerning a game while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in the claims.
B. Concepts performed in the human mind (e.g., “analyzing performance data for one or more users, the performance data including shooting percentage data and shooting form data”), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Mental Processes. These limitations are interpreted as at least Mental Processes insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the concepts in the human mind, while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 38-56:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-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
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-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)
Claims 18 and 38-56 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, there is no improvement to a technical field. In addition the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Furthermore, the recitation of elements such as “controlling the basketball training system to execute the drill by launching basketballs toward the user according to the drill” rails to integrate the exception into a practical application. Executing the generated drill ruleset via physical ball delivery constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The physical machine (e.g., ball thrower) is recited at a high level of generality and merely performs its well-known, routine mechanical function of throwing balls as directed by calculated data. Tying data processing rules to standard mechanical ball launches merely limits the execution of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., sports training equipment) without providing any technological improvement to the physical launcher mechanism itself or the underlying computing hardware (See MPEP 2106.05(a), (h))
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “one or more processors, a computer-readable storage media, a ball thrower”, etc. used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Further, the claims would require structure that is beyond generic, such as structure that can be interpreted analogous to a general-purpose structure and general-purpose computing elements in that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The elements of one or more processors, a computer-readable storage media and a ball thrower are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by U.S. 2016/0310814, which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises elements such as one or more processors, a computer-readable storage media, a ball thrower to control the overall operation of the gaming system (¶162-163, ¶172, ¶333). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 18 and 38-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph (U.S. 12,029,960) in view of Lewis et al (U.S. 2017/0095716).
Regarding claims 18, 46 and 53, Joseph discloses:
a basketball training system (abstract) comprising:
a ball thrower (6:43-58, Fig. 1A, basketball launching machine 100);
a controller having one or more processors (9:8-25, controller 162); and
a computer-readable storage medium coupled to the one or more processors having
instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors (9:43-63, 13:28-43, controller 162 includes storage devices which stores images, videos, audio, and programs for operating basketball launching machine 100), cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
analyzing performance data for one or more users (7:56-8:5, 8:37-46, 9:8-25, controller 162 receives sensor data from a shooting session from sensor(s) 160, the data is analyzed to calculate and display statistics from the shooting session), the performance data including shooting percentage data (9:8-25, sensor(s) 160 transmit data indicating made and missed shots (i.e., indicating a percentage of made shots)) and shooting form data (8:37-61, 15:52-60, sensor(s) 160 include cameras which capture video of the user taking shots to enable feedback regarding the user’s shooting form);
presenting a user interface having statistics presented on a portion of an image of a basketball court (15:20-60, Fig. 7, shooting statistics visualization 161 displaying a portion of a basketball court with shooting statistics displayed at locations associated player shots);
providing a drill prompt at the user interface, the drill prompt including one or more drills (2:1-49, 11:44-58, the user interface allows a coach to select indicia corresponding to the pass receipt locations the coach wants the basketball passed in order to improve a player’s performance);
receiving user inputs through the user interface that provides the drill prompt (2:1-49, 11:44-58, the user interface allows a coach to select indicia corresponding to the pass receipt locations the coach wants the basketball passed in order to improve a player’s performance);
generating a drill based on the received one or more user inputs received through the user interface that provides the drill prompt (11:12-43, once the indicia are selected controller 162 receives the inputs and automatically re-orders the selected locations in a randomized order to direct the launching machine to pass the basketballs to the locations); and
controlling the basketball training system and the ball thrower to execute the drill to thrown basketballs to locations corresponding to where the user inputs were received on the portions of the image of the basketball court (14:39-62, controller 162 is configured to command the basketball launching machine 100 to launch the basketballs based on the selected locations).
However, Joseph does not specifically disclose that:
the one or more drills provided at the drill prompt are recommended based on analyzing the performance data for the one or more users.
Lewis teaches:
a basketball training system (¶31-32, ¶119), including a processor (¶50), sensors (¶32), cameras (¶59) and a remote computation system (¶61, application 260) for monitoring a user’s shooting performance (¶31-32, training system uses the sensors and cameras to track a user’s shooting session), wherein performance data (¶59, ¶77, the sensors are configured to sense if shots are made or missed and the cameras capture video data during a user’s shooting session) is received from one or more users (¶65, ¶77, data from the sensors and the cameras are transmitted by training module 224 to the application 260), and wherein a drill prompt is provided at a user interface including one or more recommended drills based on analyzing the performance data for the one or more users (¶85, application 260 recommends a training program that is customized to each user based on analysis of previous drills performed by a player).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to integrate the performance based training recommendation, as taught by Lewis, into the training system, as taught by Joseph, in order to provide drill prompts that include recommended drills based on a user’s performance data, thereby yielding the predictable result of providing more personalized training which can focus on the specific needs of the particular user, thus providing more individual attention on the development of each player’s skills (See Lewis, ¶69).
Regarding claims 38 and 47, Joseph discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the performance data is parsed from video recording data of the user (3:27-51, 7:21-8:5, cameras are used to record videos which are used to determine, for example, if a user’s shots are made or missed).
Regarding claim 39 and 49, Joseph discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the performance data is parsed from motion capture data of the user (8:37-61, 15:52-60, sensor(s) 160 include cameras which capture video of the user taking shots to enable feedback regarding the user’s shooting form).
Regarding claim 40, Joseph discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the operations include receiving ball delivery location inputs on the portion of the image of the basketball court after providing the drill prompt (2:1-49, 11:44-58, the user interface allows a coach to select indicia corresponding to the pass receipt locations the coach wants the basketball passed in order to improve a player’s performance).
Regarding claim 41, Joseph discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the shooting percentage is parsed from play-by-play data of the user (9:8-25, sensor(s) 160 transmit data indicating made and missed shots of a user from a shooting session (i.e., indicating a percentage of made shots for a number of plays)).
Regarding claims 42, 51 and 54, Joseph discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses:
presenting a moveable ball delivery input feature while presenting the drill prompt (20:4-39, Fig. 15-16, pass receipt locations may be moved via an input to the display).
Regarding claims 43 and 55, Joseph discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses:
receiving a user selection to move the moveable ball delivery input feature (20:4-39, Fig. 15-16, a user drags the pass receipt location from an initial spot to a new spot via an input to the display); and
defining ball delivery locations on a representative basketball court in response to the
user selection (20:4-39, Fig. 15-16, the pass receipt location 155 is moved from an initial location (Fig. 15) to a new location (Fig. 16) via an input to the display).
Regarding claims 44, 52 and 556, Joseph discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses:
presenting a moveable shot input feature on the user interface, wherein a user can select
and move the moveable shot input feature to define shot locations on a representative basketball court (20:4-39, Fig. 15-16, pass receipt locations may be moved via an input to the display).
Regarding claim 45, Joseph discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the shot locations are different than the ball delivery locations (6:43-58, Fig. 1A, Fig. 3, basketball launching machine 100 is placed below the basketball goal, pass receipt locations 150 are located on or around a basketball playing area).
Claim(s) 48 and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph (U.S. 12,029,960) in view of Lewis et al (U.S. 2017/0095716) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Gordon et al (U.S. 2018/0147468)
Regarding claim 48, Joseph and Lewis disclose that which is discussed above, however, neither specifically disclose:
performing image recognition of the video recording data to identify the user and the user performance data in the video recording data.
Gordon teaches:
a basketball training system (¶82), including a processor (¶82-84), sensors (¶82), cameras (¶92) and a remote computation system (¶60) for monitoring a user’s shooting performance (¶82-84, basketball performance monitoring system uses the sensors and cameras to track a user’s shooting session), wherein performance data (¶82, the sensors are configured to sense when a shot which is taken is made and/or missed during a user’s shooting session) is received from one or more users (¶60, ¶94, recorded data is transferred to remote computational system 11 for processing data from the sensors and the cameras captured during a shooting session), and wherein image recognition is performed of the video recording data to identify the user and the user performance data in the video recording data (¶92, video data is processed by remote computation system 11 to identify the shooter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to integrate the video analysis system, as taught by Gordon, into the training system, as taught by Joseph and Lewis, in order to yield the predictable result of providing a means for more accurate and reliable technology for optimizing and improving a user’s skill (See Gordon, ¶130).
Regarding claim 50, Joseph and Lewis disclose that which is discussed above, however, neither specifically disclose:
the motion capture data of the user is compared to ideal shot form data.
Gordon teaches:
a basketball training system (¶82), including a processor (¶82-84), sensors (¶82), cameras (¶92) and a remote computation system (¶60) for monitoring a user’s shooting performance (¶82-84, basketball performance monitoring system uses the sensors and cameras to track a user’s shooting session), wherein performance data (¶82, the sensors are configured to sense when a shot which is taken is made and/or missed during a user’s shooting session) is received from one or more users (¶60, ¶94, recorded data is transferred to remote computational system 11 for processing data from the sensors and the cameras captured during a shooting session), and the motion capture data of the user is compared to ideal shot form data (¶121-122, video data from a first player is compared to video data from a second player to determine if the second player correctly reproduced the shot of the first player, the examiner interprets the shot of the first player, which the second player is attempting to reproduce, as an ideal shot for the game of H-O-R-S-E being played).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to integrate the video analysis system, as taught by Gordon, into the training system, as taught by Joseph and Lewis, in order to yield the predictable result of providing a means for more accurate and reliable technology for optimizing and improving a user’s skill (See Gordon, ¶130).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/15/2026, regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Initially the examiner notes that applicant’s remarks consist primarily of general allegations that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. General allegations of patentability without specifically pointing out of errors in the examiner’s rejection fails to overcome the rejection (See MPEP 707.07(f)). Nevertheless, in the furtherance of compact prosecution, the examiner has updated the rejection above in light of the amendments and responded to applicant’s allegations below, as best understood.
Applicant alleges that the applied combination of references (Joseph in view of Lewis) fails to disclose the amended features of instant claims (See Remarks, pg. 7), such as:
1. “analyzing performance data for one or more users, the performance data including shooting percentage data and shooting form data";
2. "providing a drill prompt at the user interface, the drill prompt including one or more recommended drills based on analysis of the performance data of the one or more users";
3. "receiving one or more inputs through the user interface that provides the drill prompt"; and
4. "generating a drill based on the received one or more user inputs received through the user interface that provides the drill prompt”.
The examiner must respectfully disagree. Joseph discloses analyzing performance data, including shooting percentage and shooting form, via sensors and cameras which capture the shooting data (7:56-8:5, 8:37-61, 9:8-25), receiving one or more inputs through a user interface (2:1-49, 11:44-58) and generating a drill based on the received inputs received through the user interface (11:12-43). Further, Lewis teaches a drill prompt with recommended drills (¶85). Therefore, applicant’s allegations are found unpersuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/15/2026, regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended features of instant claims, such as:
1. “analyzing performance data for one or more users, the performance data including shooting percentage data and shooting form data";
2. "providing a drill prompt at the user interface, the drill prompt including one or more recommended drills based on analysis of the performance data of the one or more users";
3. "receiving one or more inputs through the user interface that provides the drill prompt";
4. "generating a drill based on the received one or more user inputs received through the user interface that provides the drill prompt”; and
5. “controlling the basketball training system to execute the drill by launching basketballs toward the user according to the drill”,
are not directed to a judicial exception, recite “significantly more” than an abstract idea, and provide an improvement to technology or a technical field under MPEP 2106.05(a) (See Remarks, pg. 7). The examiner must respectfully disagree. The steps of analyzing performance data (e.g., shooting percentages, shooting form) and generating a drill based on data analysis conceptual tasks that evaluate information and make operation decisions. These steps represent data processing operations that can be performed in the human mind or on paper. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, concepts which can be performed in the human mind (e.g., analyzing, evaluating, judging) fall under the abstract grouping of Mental Processes. Further, the steps of providing drill prompts, receiving user inputs, and directing a player through a physical training sequence are drawn to following rules or instructions for physical/sports training. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines,
following rules or instructions and teaching fall under the category of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People, which is abstract idea included in the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Tying these abstract data evaluation steps and game rules and training to generic computer hardware does not remove them from the judicial exceptions.
Applicant argues that the amended claims provide a technical solution that improves technology under MPEP 2106.05(a) (See Remarks, pg. 7). The examiner must respectfully disagree. In order for an abstract idea to be an improvement, there must be a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention in the specification and the claim itself reflects the improvement in technology. While applicant points to specific specification citations describing system mechanisms or features which applicant alleges provide an improvement under Step 2A, Prong 2, those alleged technical details and specific structural elements are not set forth in the claims. Disclosures in the specification hat are absent from the claims cannot impart patent eligibility to generic claim recitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON PINHEIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00A-4:30P ET.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/Jason Pinheiro/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights