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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an Internet of Things (IoT) device” in line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the following claim terms are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03) Claim 1 recites a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 14 recites a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 18 recites an apparatus, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations denote newly added claim limitations:
Claim 1, 14 and 18 recite a system for generating nonfungible tokens (NFTs) corresponding to validating an Internet of Things (IoT) device, the system comprising: an Internet of Things (IoT) device; and a computing platform comprising a processor and non-transitory memory storing instructions that when executed by the processor cause the computing platform to: search, via a NFT orchestration module, a platform gateway for the IoT device requesting to execute a transaction; mine, via the NFT orchestration module, metadata associated with the IoT device; convert, via the NFT orchestration module, the metadata into a sequence of characters; create, via the NFT orchestration module, a NFT based on the sequence of characters, wherein the sequence of characters is unique; submit, via the NFT orchestration module, the NFT to a blockchain network for addition of the NFT to the blockchain network, wherein the system is configured to validates the IoT device requesting to execute transactions based on the NFT associated with the IoT device; and wherein the NFT associated with the IoT device is used to execute a payment transaction via a bank payment platform. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are fundamental economic practice, such as mitigating risk through authentication to prevent fraud. The claims are also commercial interaction, such as business relations or sales activities (executing a payment transaction). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). No.
The above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a system, Internet of Things IoT device, computing platform, non-transitory memory, processor, NFT orchestration module, bank payment platform and a blockchain network. The additional elements of a system, Internet of Things IoT device, computing platform, non-transitory memory, processor, NFT orchestration module, bank payment platform, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of the blockchain network are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and the claims fail to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
The claims are next analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (a system, Internet of Things IoT device, computing platform, non-transitory memory, processor, NFT orchestration module, bank payment platform and a blockchain network) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of blockchain to the judicial exception. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of blockchain to the judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 2 recites wherein the platform gateway is scans for the IoT device requesting to execute the transaction; and initiate registration of the IoT device. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the platform gateway and IoT device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 3 recites further comprising a smart contract mapping engine, wherein the smart contract mapping engine generates a smart contract for the IoT device based on the NFT associated with the metadata; assign a rule to the smart contract related to validating the IoT device on the platform gateway; and bind the NFT with the smart contract for validating the IoT device on the platform gateway. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of smart contract mapping engine and IoT device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. The additional elements of a smart contract are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain(MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 4 recites further comprising a NFT monitoring module wherein the NFT monitoring module enables or disables validation of the IoT device on the platform gateway with the smart contract based on the rule assigned to the smart contract relating to validating the IoT device on the platform gateway. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of smart contract mapping engine, IoT device and platform gateway are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. The additional elements of a smart contract are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain(MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 5 recites wherein the smart contract mapping engine assigns a second rule to the smart contract related to burning the NFT and generating a new NFT when the metadata associated with the IoT device changes. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of smart contract mapping engine and IoT device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. The additional elements of a smart contract are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain(MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 6 recites further comprising a deep learning module, wherein the deep learning module measures a frequency of times the NFT is burned and a new NFT is generated; analyze the measured frequency of times the NFT is burned and the new NFT is generated using a neural network; and generate one or more commands based on a neural network output for enabling or disabling validation of the IoT device on the platform gateway. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the deep learning module and IoT device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above.
Claim 7 recites further comprising a deep learning module, wherein the deep learning module measures metadata associated with the IoT device; analyze the measured metadata associated with the IoT device using a neural network; and generate one or more commands based on a neural network output for enabling or disabling validation of the IoT device on the platform gateway. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the deep learning module and IoT device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above.
Claim 8 recites wherein the IoT device is a phone, tablet, smart watch, or car. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the IoT device, phone, tablet, smart watch, or car are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 9 recites wherein the metadata associated with the IoT device comprises one or more of: a manufacturer of the IoT device, a model of the IoT device, an operating system of the IoT device, a firmware used by the IoT device, and a location of the IoT device. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of a manufacturer of the IoT device, a model of the IoT device, an operating system of the IoT device, a firmware used by the IoT device, are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 10 recites wherein the rule related to validating the IoT device on the platform gateway assigned by the smart contract mapping engine is determined from a rule engine defining rules for the IoT device. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of aIoT device, platform gateyway, smart contract mapping engine, and rule engine are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 11 recites further comprising a NFT repository, where the NFT repository stores the NFT; stores the smart contract bound to the NFT for validating the IoT device on the platform gateway. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of NFT repository, IoT device, and platform gateway are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. The additional elements of a smart contract are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 12 recites wherein the NFT repository stores a plurality of smart contracts, wherein each of the plurality of smart contracts is bound to a NFT for validating an IoT device associated with the NFT. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of NFT repository, and IoT device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. The additional elements of a plurality of smart contracts are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 13 recites wherein the NFT associated with the IoT device certifies a digital asset to be authentic using a cryptographic hash, and wherein the digital asset comprises the metadata, and wherein the NFT is an identifiable data block stored on a blockchain, and wherein the blockchain is a distributed ledger. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of IoT device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. The additional elements of a digital asset, data block, blockchain and distributed ledger are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 15 recites further comprising: scanning, by the platform gateway, for the IoT device requesting to execute the transaction; and initiating, by the platform gateway, registration of the IoT device. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 14, and the additional elements of platform gateway and an IoT device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 14 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 14, supra.
Claim 16 recites further comprising: generating, by a smart contract mapping engine, a smart contract for the IoT device based on the NFT associated with the metadata; assigning, by the smart contract mapping engine, a rule to the smart contract related to validating the IoT device on the platform gateway; and binding, by the smart contract mapping engine, the NFT with the smart contract for validating the IoT device on the platform gateway. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 14, and the additional elements of IoT device, smart contract mapping engine, and platform gateway are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 14 analysis above. The additional elements of a smart contract are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 14, supra.
Claim 17 recites further comprising enabling or disabling, by a NFT monitoring module, validation of the IoT device on the platform gateway with the smart contract based on the rule assigned to the smart contract relating to validating the IoT device on the platform gateway. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 14, and the additional elements of NFT monitoring module and IoT device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 14 analysis above. The additional elements of a smart contract are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 14, supra.
Claim 19 recites further storing computer executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the system for generating nonfungible tokens (NFT) to: generate, by a smart contract mapping engine, a smart contract for the IoT device based on the NFT associated with the metadata; assign, by the smart contract mapping engine, a rule to the smart contract related to validating the IoT device on the platform gateway; and bind, by the smart contract mapping engine, the NFT with the smart contract for validating the IoT device on the platform gateway. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 18, and the additional elements of system, computer executable instructions, processors, IoT device, smart contract mapping engine, and platform gateway are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 18 analysis above. The additional elements of a smart contract are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 18, supra.
Claim 20 recites further storing computer executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system for generating nonfungible tokens (NFTs) to enable or disable, by a NFT monitoring module, validation of the IoT device on the platform gateway with the smart contract based on the rule assigned to the smart contract relating to validating the IoT device on the platform gateway. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 18, and the additional elements of system, computer executable instructions, processors, IoT device, NFT monitoring module, and platform gateway are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 18 analysis above. The additional elements of a smart contract are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 18, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the currently recited claims do not recite an abstract idea. Examiner disagrees. The limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are fundamental economic practice, such as mitigating risk through authentication to prevent fraud. The claims are also commercial interaction, such as business relations or sales activities (executing a payment transaction). As noted in Applicant’s own specification (Para. 2), as well as throughout the specification, the focus on the claim limitations is a remedy for risk of authenticated IoT devices within a system. As noted in CosmoKey, "In cases involving authentication technology, patent eligibility often turns on whether the claims provide sufficient specificity to constitute an improvement to computer functionality itself” CosmoKey Solutions GmbH & Co. KG v. Duo Sec. LLC, 15 F.4th 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2021. Here, the claim limitations fail to recite sufficient specificity to constitute an improvement to the computer function itself. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Also, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these limitations go toward mitigating risk of a payment transaction.
Applicant also argues that the currently recited claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Pg. 9). Examiner disagrees. The claims use a distributed ledger, hashing and blockchain in a generic manner. The claims do not include features that improve the underlining blockchain technology, rather, the claim limitations use the technology to perform abstract idea.
The focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools for IoT security. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. More specifically, the claims are limited to a business solution to a technical problem, not a technical solution to a technical problem.
With respect to the pre-emption concern, “[w]hat matters is whether a claim threatens to subsume the full scope of a fundamental concept, and when those concerns arise, we must look for meaningful limitations that prevent the claim as a whole from covering the concept’s every practical application.” CLSBanklnt’l. v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (Lourie, J., concurring). Here, the more limited way of implementing the abstract idea narrows the abstract idea so that it is described at a lower level of abstraction. It does not render the abstract idea to which the claim is directed any less an abstract idea. Preemption is not a separate test. To be clear, the proper focus is not preemption per se, for some measure of preemption is intrinsic in the statutory right granted with every patent to exclude competitors, for a limited time, from practicing the claimed invention. See 35 U.S.C. § 154. Rather, the animating concern is that claims should not be coextensive with a natural law, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; a patent-eligible claim must include one or more substantive limitations that, in the words of the Supreme Court, add “significantly more” to the basic principle, with the result that the claim covers significantly less. See Mayo 132 S. Ct. at 1294. Thus, broad claims do not necessarily raise § 101 preemption concerns, and seemingly narrower claims are not necessarily exempt. Id. See also Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[w]hile preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.”).
Modules (software) are additional elements. They are not part of the abstract idea. They were likely developed outside the scope of the claimed invention to perform the claimed function. “[A] claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept.” BSG, Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The “relevant inquiry is not whether the claimed invention as a whole is unconventional or non-routine.” Id (emphasis added). Rather, to properly evaluate the claims under Step Two of the Alice-Mayo standard, the abstract idea must be identified, set aside, and then “we ask . . . what else is there in the claims before us?” Id. (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78 (2012)) (cleaned up) (emphasis added). If that “what else” is the “application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques [i.e., generic computer equipment], the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.” Id. at 1290–91 (emphasis added).
Also, the deep learning analysis recites how a typical machine learning model works, using specific attributes and parameters. The currently recited claims recite how a typical machine learning model works, using specific attributes and parameters. However, the claims do not describe any particular improvement in the manner of computer functions. Although a machine learning model is used for the purposes of determining IoT security and authentication, such uses is both generic and conventional. The object of the claims is to determine IoT security and authentication, not to produce technology enabling a machine learning model to operate. The claims call for generic use of such a machine learning model in the manner such models conventionally operate. Simply reciting a particular technological module or piece of equipment in a claim does not confer eligibility. The MPEP notes this distinction.
The MPEP notes this distinction (For example, in MPEP 2106.05(f)(I), it states: Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743). In the instant application, the currently recited claims use machine learning as generic data processing.
The claims do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed as whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The currently recited claims solve IoT security and authentication, which is not a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M DUCK whose telephone number is (469)295-9049. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRANDON M DUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3693