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 Objections
Claims 5 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “… the other of the three-dimensional shaping devices” that has typos. Should be “… the another of the three-dimensional shaping devices”.
Claim 8 recites “… the other of the three-dimensional shaping devices” that has typos. Should be “… the another of the three-dimensional shaping devices”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitations are:
"display control unit" and "schedule adjustment unit", in claims 1-10.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim 1 recites:
A control device communicating with a plurality of three-dimensional shaping devices, the control device comprising:
a display control unit configured to display, on a display unit, time information indicating a time, operation information including information indicating a shaping time of a model in each of the three-dimensional shaping devices, and remaining amount information indicating a remaining amount of a material used in the three-dimensional shaping device selected from the plurality of three-dimensional shaping devices, wherein
the display control unit displays the operation information corresponding to the time information, and
the display control unit displays the time information in a specified scale or a specified time zone.
Step 1:
The claim recites a device. Thus, the claim is directed to a product, which belongs to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong one:
Claim 1 recites the limitations of “remaining amount information indicating a remaining amount of a material used in the three-dimensional shaping device selected from the plurality of three-dimensional shaping devices; operation information corresponding to the time information; and the time information in a specified scale or a specified time zone”. But for "display control unit", the recited “remaining … selected …, corresponding to …, and specified …” steps, as drafted, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, determining remaining amount information from selected 3D shaping device can be done in the mind or with pen and paper by choosing a 3D printer and determining the remaining amount of material based on the measurements. The operation information can be sorted out in the mind or using pen and pager based on time stamps and the time information can be converted to specific scale and time zone by mind process or with help of pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two:
Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional elements of 1) “communicating with a plurality of three-dimensional shaping devices”, these additional limitations represent mere receiving, transmitting and storing data that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, and are recited at a high level of generality (For example, see MPEP 2106.05(g), which notes that mere data gathering, outputting and storing can be seen as insignificant extra-solution activity). These limitations are thus insignificant extra-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
2) “control device” and "display control unit" ("display control unit” invoking 35 USC 112(f) therefore are interpreted by corresponding structure disclosed in the specification, which is merely a module implemented using one or more processors) are additional elements which are to implement the system. But the “control device” and "display control unit" are recited at high level of generality (no details whatsoever are provided other than it is data processing modules implemented by processors) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See also MPEP 2106.05(f).
3) “display, on a display unit” and “the display control unit displays” are additional limitation that is recited at high level of generality (no details what so ever are provided other than display), it is a general field of use and mere instruction to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) or mere field of use and technological environment (MPEP 2016.05(h)) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional limitation and additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The claim has the following additional limitations and elements:
1) “communicating with a plurality of three-dimensional shaping devices”;
2) “control device” and "display control unit";
3) “display, on a display unit” and “the display control unit displays”.
Regarding 1), as explained previously, are extra-solution activities, which for purposes of Step 2A Prong Two was considered insignificant. As indicated in MPEP 2016.05(d) II, receiving, transmitting and storing data are considered well-known, routine and conventional activities in the field, and do not add inventive concept into the claim.
Regarding 2) “control device” and "display control unit" are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding 3) “display, on a display unit” and “the display control unit displays” is additional limitation that is a general field of use and mere instruction to apply an exception or mere field of use and technological environment and does not add an inventive concept.
Therefore, the claim directs to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and recites additional limitations of “model information indicating a shape of the model corresponding to the operation information” that merely specifies some details of the “corresponding to …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 2 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1, and recites additional limitations of “progress information indicating a progress degree of the model being shaped by the three-dimensional shaping device 2 selected from the plurality of three-dimensional shaping devices” that merely specifies some details of the “selected …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 3 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1, the additional elements "schedule adjustment unit'' are recited at high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions, and they do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical applicant and do not add an inventive concept.
The additional limitations of “adjust a shaping end time of the three-dimensional shaping device by adjusting the operation information” that merely specifies some details of the “corresponding to …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 4 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 4 is not patent eligible
Claim 5 depends on claim 4, and recites additional limitations of “the operation information includes user information, and when same user information is included in the operation information in one of the three-dimensional shaping devices and the operation information in another of the three-dimensional shaping devices, adjusts the operation information such that an interval between the shaping end time of the one of the three-dimensional shaping devices and the shaping end time of the other of the three-dimensional shaping devices is shorter than a predetermined interval” that merely specifies some details of the “adjust …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 5 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 depends on claim 4, and recites additional limitations of “acquires time specifying information specifying the shaping end time” that represent mere receiving, transmitting and storing data that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, or mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer, and are recited at a high level of generality. These limitations are thus insignificant extra-solution activities and are considered well-known, routine and conventional activities in the field, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept.
The recited additional limitations of “adjusts the operation information such that shaping ends at the specified time” that merely specifies some details of the “adjust …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 6 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 depends on claim 4, and recites additional limitations of “acquires schedule information indicating a schedule of a user corresponding to the user information” that represent mere receiving, transmitting and storing data that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, or mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer, and are recited at a high level of generality. These limitations are thus insignificant extra-solution activities and are considered well-known, routine and conventional activities in the field, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept.
The recited additional limitations of “adjusts the operation information such that shaping ends in a period of time in which the schedule of the user is idle” that merely specifies some details of the “adjust …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 7 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 depends on claim 4, and recites additional limitations of “the operation information includes user information, and when the user information included in the operation information in one of the three-dimensional shaping devices and the user information included in the operation information in another of the three-dimensional shaping devices have a predetermined relationship, the schedule adjustment unit adjusts the operation information such that an interval between the shaping end time of the one of the three-dimensional shaping devices and the shaping end time of the other of the three-dimensional shaping devices is longer than a predetermined interval” that merely specifies some details of the “adjust …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 8 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 depends on claim 4, and recites additional limitations of “acquires providing location information indicating providing locations of the three-dimensional shaping devices” that represent mere receiving, transmitting and storing data that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, or mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer, and are recited at a high level of generality. These limitations are thus insignificant extra-solution activities and are considered well-known, routine and conventional activities in the field, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept.
The recited additional limitations of “adjusts the operation information based on the providing location information” that merely specifies some details of the “adjust …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 9 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 depends on claim 4, and recites additional elements of “at least two of the three-dimensional shaping devices have different shaping methods” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept.
The recited additional limitations of “receives shaping method specifying information specifying a specific shaping method” that represent mere receiving, transmitting and storing data that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, or mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer, and are recited at a high level of generality. These limitations are thus insignificant extra-solution activities and are considered well-known, routine and conventional activities in the field, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept.
The recited additional limitations of “when the shaping method specifying information is not received, the schedule adjustment unit distributes the shaping of the model to the three-dimensional shaping device that is not operating” that merely specifies some details of the “adjust …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 10 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 10 is not patent eligible.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOI JP 6732497 B2 in view of KUSAMA JP 2013067018 A.
Regarding claim 1, DOI teaches a control device communicating with a plurality of three-dimensional shaping devices (Fig. 1 [0010] server 108 communicating with 3D printers 102 to 107), the control device comprising:
a display control unit configured to display, on a display unit (Fig. 2 [0013] user interface using a display);
generating time information indicating a time, operation information including information indicating a shaping time of a model in each of the three-dimensional shaping devices, and remaining amount information indicating a remaining amount of a material used in the three-dimensional shaping device selected from the plurality of three-dimensional shaping devices (Figs. 9-11 [0037] –[0041] [0045] for selected printers 102, 103 and 104, the operation information is generated including the shaping starting time, the overall shaping time, and the volume of the remaining material in the printer);
the operation information corresponding to the time information (Fig. 11 [0041] [0042] the operation information is corresponding to the time the printer operation is started), and
the time information in a specified scale or a specified time zone (Fig. 11 [0041] [0042] this time is specified in minute and hour, and inherently the time of the day is based on a specified time zone).
DOI does not explicitly further teach the display control unit displays the time information and the operation information.
KUSAMA explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the display control unit displays the time information and the operation information (Fig. 11 page 11 paragraphs 1-5, the operation information corresponding to the time information is displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DOI to incorporate the teachings of KUSAMA, because they all directed to 3D printing operation control, to make the device wherein the display control unit displays the time information and the operation information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so that the user can check on the operation status, as KUSAMA teaches in page 11 paragraph 5.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOI in view of KUSAMA as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of FUKAKUSA JP 2016027468 A.
Regarding claim 2, neither DOI nor KUSAMA explicitly further teaches the display control unit displays, on the display unit, model information indicating a shape of the model corresponding to the operation information.
FUKAKUSA explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the display control unit displays, on the display unit, model information indicating a shape of the model corresponding to the operation information (page 4 paragraph 3 from the bottom, the image of an object being printed is superimposed on the real image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DOI and KUSAMA to incorporate the teachings of FUKAKUSA, because they all directed to 3D printing operation control, to make the device wherein the display control unit displays, on the display unit, model information indicating a shape of the model corresponding to the operation information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to notify user the print progress, as FUKAKUSA teaches in page 4 paragraph 3 from the bottom.
Regarding claim 3, FUKAKUSA further teaches the display control unit displays, on the display unit, progress information indicating a progress degree of the model being shaped by the three-dimensional shaping device selected from the plurality of three-dimensional shaping devices (Fig. 8 the percentage of printing completed is displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DOI and KUSAMA to incorporate the teachings of FUKAKUSA, because they all directed to 3D printing operation control, to make the device wherein the display control unit displays, on the display unit, progress information indicating a progress degree of the model being shaped by the three-dimensional shaping device selected from the plurality of three-dimensional shaping devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to notify user the print progress, as FUKAKUSA teaches in page 4 paragraph 3 from the bottom.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOI in view of KUSAMA as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of TANAKA US 20180364680 A1.
Regarding claim 4, neither DOI nor KUSAMA explicitly further teaches a schedule adjustment unit configured to adjust a shaping end time of the three-dimensional shaping device by adjusting the operation information.
TANAKA explicitly teaches in an analogous art that a schedule adjustment unit configured to adjust a shaping end time of the three-dimensional shaping device by adjusting the operation information (Fig. 10 [0075] - [0078] the operation of the printers is adjusted to adjust the completion time at the selected printer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DOI and KUSAMA to incorporate the teachings of TANAKA, because they all directed to 3D printing operation control, to make the device wherein a schedule adjustment unit configured to adjust a shaping end time of the three-dimensional shaping device by adjusting the operation information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to achieving an improved operating rate of the 3D printers, as TANAKA teaches in [0077].
Regarding claim 6, TANAKA further teaches the schedule adjustment unit acquires time specifying information specifying the shaping end time, and adjusts the operation information such that shaping ends at the specified time (Fig. 10 [0075] - [0078] 18th job end time acquired, the operation of the printers is adjusted to allow the 18th job ended in the specified time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DOI and KUSAMA to incorporate the teachings of TANAKA, because they all directed to 3D printing operation control, to make the device wherein the schedule adjustment unit acquires time specifying information specifying the shaping end time, and adjusts the operation information such that shaping ends at the specified time. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to achieving an improved operating rate of the 3D printers, as TANAKA teaches in [0077].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOI in view of KUSAMA and TANAKA as applied to claims 4 and 6 above, further in view of HAYS US 20160200084 A1.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of DOI, KUSAMA and TANAKA does not further explicitly teach the schedule adjustment unit acquires providing location information indicating providing locations of the three-dimensional shaping devices, and adjusts the operation information based on the providing location information.
HAYS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the schedule adjustment unit acquires providing location information indicating providing locations of the three-dimensional shaping devices, and adjusts the operation information based on the providing location information (Figs. 3A-3C [0056] – [0059] the completion time is determined by the distance that determined by the locations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DOI, KUSAMA and TANAKA to incorporate the teachings of HAYS, because they all directed to 3D printing operation control, to make the device wherein the schedule adjustment unit acquires providing location information indicating providing locations of the three-dimensional shaping devices, and adjusts the operation information based on the providing location information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to take into account the transfer time for the extra time for complete condition, as HAYS teaches in [0059].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7-8 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections and/or the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 depends on dependent claim 4, DOI, KUSAMA and TANAKA together teach the claim elements of claim 4. However, DOI, KUSAMA and TANAKA do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
wherein the operation information includes user information, and
when same user information is included in the operation information in one of the three-dimensional shaping devices and the operation information in another of the three-dimensional shaping devices, the schedule adjustment unit adjusts the operation information such that an interval between the shaping end time of the one of the three-dimensional shaping devices and the shaping end time of the other of the three-dimensional shaping devices is shorter than a predetermined interval.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 depends on dependent claim 4, DOI, KUSAMA and TANAKA together teach the claim elements of claim 4. However, DOI, KUSAMA and TANAKA do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
wherein the operation information includes user information, and
the schedule adjustment unit acquires schedule information indicating a schedule of a user corresponding to the user information, and adjusts the operation information such that shaping ends in a period of time in which the schedule of the user is idle.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 depends on dependent claim 4, DOI, KUSAMA and TANAKA together teach the claim elements of claim 4. However, DOI, KUSAMA and TANAKA do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
wherein the operation information includes user information, and
when the user information included in the operation information in one of the three-dimensional shaping devices and the user information included in the operation information in another of the three-dimensional shaping devices have a predetermined relationship, the schedule adjustment unit adjusts the operation information such that an interval between the shaping end time of the one of the three-dimensional shaping devices and the shaping end time of the other of the three-dimensional shaping devices is longer than a predetermined interval.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 depends on dependent claim 4, DOI, KUSAMA and TANAKA together teach the claim elements of claim 4. However, DOI, KUSAMA and TANAKA do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
wherein at least two of the three-dimensional shaping devices have different shaping methods,
the schedule adjustment unit receives shaping method specifying information specifying a specific shaping method, and
when the shaping method specifying information is not received, the schedule adjustment unit distributes the shaping of the model to the three-dimensional shaping device that is not operating.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HAN KR 20190070244 A teaches scheduling multiple printers with remaining material.
PEKIC US 20220203617 A1 teaches completion time specified by user with remaining material.
TSUNODA JP 2019111779 A teaches remaining material for each printer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tang whose telephone number is (571)272-7437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached on (571)272-2279. 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.
/M.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2115