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 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 1-14 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. Claims 1-14 recite an abstract idea of organizing of human activity. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application and 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
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2a1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1-14 recite the following.
A game monitoring system comprising: a chip ID identifying unit configured to identify, when a gaming chip to which a chip ID is given is in a predetermined area on a game table, the chip ID of the gaming chip;
an imaging unit configured to image a player playing a game at the game table and the gaming chip on the game table to generate an image;
a player detecting unit configured to detect the player from the image;
a chip detecting unit configured to detect the gaming chip from the image;
a first associating unit configured to associate, based on the image, the player detected in the image by the player detecting unit with a first gaming chip detected in the image by the chip detecting unit as the player who bet the first gaming chip;
a second associating unit configured to
determine whether the gaming chip whose chip ID is identified by the chip ID identifying unit and the first gaming chip detected in the image by the chip detecting unit are the same gaming chip, and
associate a chip ID of the first gaming chip, which is determined to be the same gaming chip as the first gaming chip, as the chip ID of the first gaming chip, with the first gaming chip by the first associating unit; and
a recording unit configured to record a pair of the chip ID of the first gaming chip and an image of the player associated with the chip ID of the first gaming chip by the second associating unit.
The underlined limitations recite an abstract idea of organization of human activity. The claimed limitations recite steps of managing a game by associating a player with a chip for a game.
Step 2a2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration of whether the claim recites additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application.
An additional element or combination of additional elements that are indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-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
Additional element or combination of additional elements that are not indicative of integration of the abstract idea 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)
Claims 1-14 do not apply a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Claims 1-14 are not directed to an improvement to a function of a computer. 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 additional elements of : an imaging unit amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The chip ID identifying unit, player detecting unit, chip detecting unit, first associating unit, second associating unit, and a recording unit amount (which are processes performed by an information processing device) is a generic computer or computer component (processor) used to implement the abstract idea.
The additional elements identified above considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
Claims 1-14 recite an imaging unit configured to image a player and gaming chip. Nicastro (US 2006/0205484) discloses it is known in the art to collected game data in wagering game using a camera such as the game participants, cards, and chips at a table (paragraph 20).
Claim -14 recite a chip ID identifying unit, player detecting unit, chip detecting unit, first associating unit, second associating unit, and a recording unit amount (which are processes performed by an information processing device). A processor to process the management of a game including detecting identifying or detecting objects from an image is well known in the art. McClellan (US 10,217,312) discloses it is known in the art for use a computer to manage a casino table including identifying objects from images (col. 4:43-36, 5:16-27, 14:27-32).
The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-14 further recite the abstract idea of managing a game by comparing the information and indicating a mismatch; making associations with the data; and identifying the chip. The claims limitations considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 8 recite a chip using RFID tag. Mathis (US 2007/0060313) discloses it is known in the art to track chips using RFID tags (paragraphs 13, 45). The claims limitations considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a chip ID identifying unit configured to identify, when a gaming chip to which a chip ID is given is in a predetermined area on a game table, the chip ID of the gaming chip;
a player detecting unit configured to detect the player from the image;
a chip detecting unit configured to detect the gaming chip from the image;
a first associating unit configured to associate, based on the image, the player detected in the image by the player detecting unit with a first gaming chip detected in the image by the chip detecting unit as the player who bet the first gaming chip;
a second associating unit configured to determine whether the gaming chip whose chip ID is identified by the chip ID identifying unit and the first gaming chip detected in the image by the chip detecting unit are the same gaming chip, and associate a chip ID of the first gaming chip, which is determined to be the same gaming chip as the first gaming chip, as the chip ID of the first gaming chip, with the first gaming chip by the first associating unit; and
a recording unit configured to record a pair of the chip ID of the first gaming chip and an image of the player associated with the chip ID of the first gaming chip by the second associating unit
in Claim 1; and
updating unit in Claims 6-7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Takine (US 2021/0090379)
Claim 1. Takine discloses a game monitoring system (Figs. 11-12) comprising:
a chip ID identifying unit (control device identifying chip using RFID, paragraphs 84, 151, 155-156 166) configured to identify, when a gaming chip to which a chip ID is given is in a predetermined area on a game table, the chip ID of the gaming chip (paragraphs 137, 141);
an imaging unit (camera 52 in Fig. 11) configured to image a player playing a game at the game table and the gaming chip on the game table to generate an image (photograph player face and game tokens; paragraph 145);
a player detecting unit configured to detect the player from the image (control device/ face recognition device, paragraphs 145, 152);
a chip detecting unit configured to detect the gaming chip from the image (control device, paragraphs 145, 207);
a first associating unit configured to associate, based on the image, the player detected in the image by the player detecting unit with a first gaming chip detected in the image by the chip detecting unit as the player who bet the first gaming chip (an association in the management table is made with the user identification information and the game token information; paragraph 168, 169)
a second associating unit configured to determine whether the gaming chip whose chip ID is identified by the chip ID identifying unit and the first gaming chip detected in the image by the chip detecting unit are the same gaming chip, and associate a chip ID of the first gaming chip, which is determined to be the same gaming chip as the first gaming chip, as the chip ID of the first gaming chip, with the first gaming chip by the first associating unit (The system read the chip information from the chip ID identifying unit/RFID tag and associates the information with the information in the database; paragraph 166. This information is associated as the first gaming chip with acquired user ID; paragraph 182. In addition, a second association with the first chip is made since the system checks if the RFID tag is authentic and matches with the information in the database; paragraph 184);
a recording unit configured to record a pair of the chip ID of the first gaming chip and an image of the player associated with the chip ID of the first gaming chip by the second associating unit (control device, paragraphs 84, 141-143, 152, 155, 166, 169, 171, 173, 182-183).
Claim 2. Takine discloses a game monitoring system according to claim 1, further comprising: a storage unit configured to store the chip ID of the gaming chip and an owner thereof so as to associate them with each other (paragraphs 168-169, 172-175);
and a comparing unit configured to compare an owner associated with the chip ID of the first gaming chip in the storage unit with the player associated with the chip ID of the first gaming chip by the second associating unit, and output, when the owner associated with the chip ID of the first gaming chip in the storage unit does not match the player associated with the chip ID of the first gaming chip by the second associating unit, a signal indicating a mismatch (paragraphs 187, 208).
.
Claim 3. Takine discloses the game monitoring system according to claim 2, wherein the player is given to a player ID (User ID; paragraphs 130, 152, 168), the game monitoring system further comprises a player ID identifying unit configured to identify a player ID of the player detected by the player detecting unit, the storage unit is configured to store the chip ID of the gaming chip and a player ID of the player who is the owner thereof so as to associate them with each other, and the comparing unit is configured to compare a player ID of the owner associated with the chip ID of the first gaming chip in the storage unit with a player ID identified by the player ID identifying unit with respect to the player associated with the chip ID of the first gaming chip by the second associating unit (paragraphs 168-169, 172-175), and output, when the player ID of the owner associated with the chip ID of the first gaming chip in the storage unit does not match the player ID identified by the player ID identifying unit with respect to the player associated with the chip ID of the first gaming chip by the second associating unit, a signal indicating a mismatch (paragraphs 187, 208).
Claim 5. Takine discloses the game monitoring system according to claim 2, further comprising a controlling unit configured to rewrite, when the comparing unit determines that the owner associated with the chip ID of the first gaming chip in the storage unit does not match the player associated with the chip ID of the first gaming chip by the second associating unit, the owner associated with the chip ID of the first gaming chip in the storage unit to the player associated with the chip ID of the first gaming chip by the second associating unit (Control device record/store that the results do not match; paragraph 208).
Claim 6. Takine discloses the game monitoring system according to claim 2, further comprising an updating unit configured to rewrite an owner associated with a chip ID of a payout gaming chip paid out by a dealer in the storage unit to a player associated with the payout gaming chip by the second associating unit (linking user it to game tokens payouts, paragraphs 102, 140, 174, 187).
Claim 7. Takine discloses the game monitoring system according to claim 2, further comprising an updating unit configured to rewrite an owner associated with a chip ID of a payout gaming chip paid out by a dealer in the storage unit to a player (linking user it to game tokens payouts, paragraphs 102, 140, 174, 187, 228) associated with a first gaming chip moved from the predetermined area together with the payout gaming chip by the second associating unit (groups of token moved together or stacks of game tokens can be read; paragraphs 36, 100, 145, 228).
Claim 8. Takine discloses the game monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the gaming chip includes an RFID tag storing the chip ID, and the chip ID identifying unit is configured to identify the chip ID of the gaming chip by reading the chip ID from the RFID tag (paragraphs 84, 151, 155-156 166).
Claim 9. Takine discloses the game monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the gaming chip includes an expression of the chip ID on a side surface, and the chip ID identifying unit is configured to identify the chip ID of the gaming chip by detecting the gaming chip from the image in which the gaming chip is imaged and decoding the chip ID on the side surface of the detected gaming chip (The game tokens 83 have different color bands on the side surfaces, depending on the type, so that the type can be visually determined when the sides are observed; paragraph 207)
Claim 11. Takine the game monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the chip ID identifying unit is configured to detect a gaming chip from a first image generated by the imaging unit and identify the chip ID of the detected gaming chip, the chip detecting unit is configured to detect a gaming chip from a second image generated by the imaging unit and different from the first image, and the second associating unit is configured to identify, based on a relationship between a position of the gaming chip in the first image, detected by the chip ID identifying unit and a position of the gaming chip in the second image, detected by the chip detecting unit, as the first gaming chip the gaming chips in same positions (System detects the chip using the image and identify the chips using RFID as indicated above. The readings at the same position or each betting area is repeated and therefore second time with a second image; paragraphs 155, 195-196, 199-200, 202, 207, 217, 229).
Claim 13. Takin discloses the game monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the chip ID identifying unit is configured to identify a position of the gaming chip whose chip ID is identified, on the game table, the chip detecting unit is configured to identify a position of the gaming chip detected from the image (RFID reader detect chip based on position and RFID tag, paragraphs 155), on the game table, and the second associating unit is configured to identify, based on the position identified by the chip ID identifying unit and the position identified by the chip detecting unit, as the first gaming chip the gaming chips in same positions (Image from camera is used to recognize position, type and number of game tokens, paragraph 207. ).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takine (US 2021/0090379).
Claim 12. Takine discloses the claimed invention as discussed above but fails to teach the imaging unit includes a first camera configured to generate the first image and a second camera different from the first camera and configured to generate the second image, and the second associating unit is configured to convert the position of the gaming chip in the first image detected by the chip ID identifying unit and the position of the gaming chip in the second image detected by the chip detecting unit into a common coordinate space to identify as the first gaming chip the gaming chips in the same positions. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. Takine discloses the system detects the chip using the image and identify the chips using RFID as indicated above. The readings at the same position or each betting area is repeated and therefore second time with a second image; (paragraphs 155, 195-196, 199-200, 202, 207, 217, 229). Therefore, it would have been obvious to convert the position of the gaming chip in the first image detected by the chip ID identifying unit and the position of the gaming chip in the second image detected by the chip detecting unit into a common coordinate space to identify as the first gaming chip the gaming chips in the same positions since the chips are located in the same position.
Claims 4, 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takine (US 2021/0090379) as applied to claims 1, 2 above, and further in view of Moore (US 2020/0402357).
Claim 4. Takine discloses storing the face information of the user and the chip ID the gaming chip, associating the information with each other as discussed above bur fails to explicitly teach that the comparing unit is configured to compare face information associated with the chip ID of the first gaming chip in the storage unit with face information extracted from the image with respect to the player associated with the first gaming chip by the second associating unit, and output, when the face information associated with the chip ID of the first gaming chip in the storage unit does not match the face information extracted from the image with respect to the player associated with the first gaming chip by the second associating unit, a signal indicating a mismatch. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. Takine discloses the system uses the information to detect fraud (paragraph 209) and therefore would have been obvious to compare face information associated with the chip ID of the first gaming chip in the storage unit with face information extracted from the image with respect to the player. In addition, an analogous art to chip managing systems, Moore discloses a system that monitor and tracks players and chip movement within a game. Moore discloses that the system compares the face information (step 512 in Fig. 5) associated with the chip ID of the first gaming chip in the storage unit (image file retrieved corresponding to the player identifier associated with the casino chip; steps 504-408) with face information extracted from the image with respect to the player (face image captured 5160 in Fig. 5; paragraphs 18). A signal is outputted when the there’s a mismatch (paragraphs 94). This prevents fraud and players from stealing the chip. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Takine’s invention and compare face information associated with the chip ID of the first gaming chip in the storage unit with face information extracted from the image and signal a mismatch when information does not match in order to provide the predictable result of preventing fraud and theft.
Claim 14. Takine discloses the claimed invention as discussed above but fails to teach the chip ID identifying unit is configured to identify timing when the gaming chip whose chip ID is identified is placed on the game table, the chip detecting unit is configured to identify timing when the gaming chip detected from the image is placed on the game table, and the second associating unit is configured to identify, based on the timing identified by the chip ID identifying unit and the timing identified by the chip detecting unit, as the first gaming chip the gaming chips placed on the game tables at the same timing. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In addition, an analogous art to chip managing systems, Moore discloses a system that monitor and tracks players and chip movement within a game. More discloses that the wager image and chip identifiers are stored in a databased along with data including data/time of the wager, player who placed the wager, an image of the player who placed the wager, result of the wager, etc. (paragraphs 35, 85). It would have been obvious to modify Takine’s invention and identify timing when the gaming chip whose chip ID is identified is placed on the game table, identify timing when the gaming chip detected from the image is placed on the game table, and identify, based on the timing identified by the chip ID identifying unit and the timing identified by the chip detecting unit, as the first gaming chip the gaming chips placed on the game tables at the same timing in order to provide the predictable result of managing the gaming tokens and tracking when the chips are placed and moved.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takine (US 2021/0090379) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eager (US 2021/0056804).
Claim 10. Takine discloses the claimed invention as discussed above but fails to teach that the player detecting unit is configured to detect a hand of the player, and the first associating unit is configured to associate, based on a positional relationship between the hand of the player detected by the player detecting unit and the gaming chip detected by the chip detecting unit, both of them with each other. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to chip managing systems, Eager discloses a system that automatically links player and gaming tokens. Eager discloses a camera captures images of a player including the player’s hand and associated the hand with the user and the chips and links the token to the player (paragraphs 31, 44, 81-82, 96-108). This allows the system to track the token and the player (paragraphs 81-82). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Takine’s invention and detect a hand of the player and associate the chip and the player based on a positional relationship between the hand in order to provide the predictable result of tracking the token and the player.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC 101
Applicant argues that the claims as a whole does not recite a method of organizing human activity or any abstract idea. However, as indicated in the rejection above, the underlined limitations recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. Although the claims recite object recognition, the use of the camera and object recognition is a well-known generic device used to implement the abstract idea. The analyzation of data and association of data is abstract that can be performed without a computer.
Applicant argues that the claims integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by improving game monitoring systems. However, the claim limitations of monitoring the player and chips during a game and associating the chips with players is an abstract idea. There is no improvement to a technology.
Prior Art.
Applicant argues that Takine fails to teach a first associating unit, a second associating unit and a recording unit as claimed. The examiner notes that these limitations refer to a process or a computer program implemented by a processor as illustrated in Fig. 4. Takine discloses a first associating unit configured to associate, based on the image, the player detected in the image by the player detecting unit with a first gaming chip detected in the image by the chip detecting unit as the player who bet the first gaming chip (an association in the management table is made with the user identification information and the game token information; paragraph 168, 169). In other words, a processor associates the information detected from the player image and chip image in memory. Takine discloses a second associating unit configured to determine whether the gaming chip whose chip ID is identified by the chip ID identifying unit and the first gaming chip detected in the image by the chip detecting unit are the same gaming chip, and associate a chip ID of the first gaming chip, which is determined to be the same gaming chip as the first gaming chip, as the chip ID of the first gaming chip, with the first gaming chip by the first associating unit. More specifically, Takine discloses the system reads the chip information from the chip ID identifying unit/RFID tag and associates the information with the information in the database (paragraph 166). This information is associated as the first gaming chip with acquired user ID (paragraph 182). In addition, a second association with the first chip is made since the system checks if the RFID tag is authentic and matches with the information in the database (paragraph 184). The information is recorded or stored in the database (57 in Fig. 14).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 Jasson H Yoo whose telephone number is (571)272-5563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571 270-7625. 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.
/JASSON H YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715