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 .
Status of the Application
This Office-Action acknowledges the Amendment filed on 12/18/2025 and is a response to said Amendment.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (What is the statutory category?):
Claims 1-20 are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (ie: process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A; Prong I (Does the claim recite an abstract idea?):
Claim 1 recites:
A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to an occurrence of a designated credit meter event at a gaming device and an occurrence of a credit meter contribution event:
communicate data that causes the gaming device to reduce an amount of a credit meter without issuing any cashless ticket vouchers in association with the credit meter contribution event,
contribute at least part of the reduced amount of the credit meter to a pool maintained independent of the gaming device, and
issue a virtual ticket associated with an assigned a-quantity of entries in a drawing that occurs independent of the gaming device.Claim 10 recites:A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to an occurrence of a designated credit meter event at a gaming device and an occurrence of a credit meter contribution event:
communicate data that causes the gaming device to reduce an amount of a credit meter,
contribute at least part of the reduced amount of the credit meter to a pool maintained independent of the gaming device, and
assign a partial entry in a drawing that occurs independent of the gaming device.
Claim 12 recites:
An electronic gaming machine comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to an occurrence of a designated credit meter event and an occurrence of a credit meter contribution event:
reduce an amount of a credit meter without issuing any cashless ticket vouchers in association with the credit meter contribution event, and
communicate data that results in a contribution of at least part of the reduced amount of the credit meter to a pool maintained independent of the electronic gaming machine, and an issuance of a virtual ticket associated with an assigned quantity of entries in a drawing that occurs independent of the electronic gaming machine.
[the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined elements recite certain method of organizing human activity because they describe “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”]
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) "encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping." (Emphasis added)
To further elaborate on the Examiner’s interpretation regarding the claimed invention being directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity, the Examiner believes the invention describe managing interactions between people and machine (ie: a gaming machine) in which rules or instructions for the gaming machine is being implemented (ie: reduce an amount of a credit meter and contributing of at least part of the reduced amount of the credit meter to a pool maintained independent of the electronic gaming machine for assigning quantity of entries in a drawing that occurs independent of the electronic gaming machine.)
Step 2A; Prong II (Does the claim recite a practical application?):
The Examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as tool to perform the abstract idea.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. The claim elements of claim 1, 10, 12 above that are not underlined constitute additional limitations.
The Examiner submits that the following additional limitation merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: processor and display device.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example:
Guinn et al., US 20140094274 discloses that display devices for a gaming machine may comprise a plasma, LED, OLED, LCD, CRT, projection, or transmissive display device and are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 38); Pierrie et al., US 20010031659 discloses that many of the details of operating conventional gaming devices such as reel-based slot machines, video-based poker games, coin acceptors, card readers (credit, debit, smart, etc.) are well known. It is well known how to place bets, recognize the amount bet, and award the winning player based upon a pay table stored in memory. Therefore, the method and teachings of the present invention can be incorporated into a stand-alone casino game such as commonly seen with stand-alone keno, slot, and poker games (paragraph 31);
Rehill et al., US 10726678 discloses that it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the graphical user interfaces are arranged to display information regarding a program, software application or other element associated with a computing device (Col 22, lines 44-47); Fujimaki et al., US 20140114890 discloses that it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that a computer includes an input device, a central processing unit (CPU), a storage device (for example, a RAM) for storing data, a program memory (for example, a ROM) for storing a program, and an output device (paragraph 50); Nguyen et al., US 20040172508 discloses that it is well known, a computer stores data in memory (paragraph 1); Henderson et al., US 6378042 discloses that memory can be used for temporarily storing data in which each stored piece of data may be accessed independently of any other piece of data and the data in a RAM is stored at a particular location called an address (Col 1, lines 52-65);
Pecenik et al., US 20170092069, discloses that output device for a gaming machine is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art and may comprise any number or combination of a variety of well-known devices, including, without limitation: a display device, a light-emitting diode (LED), an audio speaker, an electric motor, a printer, a coupon or product dispenser, an infra-red port (e.g., for communicating with a second game machine), a Braille computer monitor, a coin and/or bill dispenser, a bell, an LED display (e.g., for displaying a players credit balance) (paragraph 82);
Seelig et al., US 20080188288 discloses that for gaming machine, a variety of prizes may be dispensed, where such prizes can be goods and services in the form of physical objects, tickets, vouchers, and coupons and discloses that when such tickets, vouchers and coupons are used, the objects may be dispensed using an internally or externally mounted dispenser and that such dispensers are well known in the art and that a coin dispenser are well known (paragraph 45);
DeLeon, US 20060116207, discloses that network communication between a central network computer system and the various gaming machines are conventional and well known in the field of gaming devices (paragraph 18);
Cockrell, Jr., US 20070057464, discloses that computer systems for implementing games can be suitable general-purpose computers having a processor and memory and are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 69);
Geisner, US 20080242421, discloses processors can be general purpose processor for implementing online games and are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 24, 34, 52);
Wilson, US 20050277457, discloses that it is readily understood that the video games are normally computer controlled, and that the game-logic electronic circuitry for implementing the method for playing such a video game in a machine is well known and available to one skilled in the art (paragraph 28);
Thomas, US 20160358424, discloses that reel-based games utilize symbols for display on an array for generating outcomes are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 4);
Peltz et al., US 20110009197, discloses that players making wagers to initiate game play of a wagering game is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 15);
Walker et al., US 20040038733, discloses that credit balances are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 64);
Saffari, US 20030050111, discloses a conventional gaming machine (system) comprising an input device used to play a game, processor to implement the game, memory device, and/or display are used to allow a player to play a game to a determined outcome (paragraph 2);
Hornik, US 20060100019, discloses input devices such as touch screen display, push buttons, are conventional in the art (paragraph 37);
Luciano, Jr., US 20030232638, discloses that, should the player decide that they want to quit the game, it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that a player can activate a cash-out button in which credits or money can be transferred to the player using well-known techniques that include depositing coins in a coin hopper or transferring credits or money to a coupon that is redeemable at other machines or kiosks (paragraph 50);
Lyons, US 20120004033 discloses that it is well known in the field of gaming that input devices, such as buttons, can be used for player inputs as well as display screens, such as a touch-screen, for providing gaming output to the player (paragraph 4).
Nguyen et al., US 20040053675 discloses that a gaming machine may include a card reader for reading credit cards and/or player tracking cards, a keypad or other input device may also be provided which permits a player to enter information, such as player identification information such as a password or PIN because such player tracking devices, including various input devices which may be employed are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 26);
Kaminkow, US 20030054874 discloses when a player wants to “cash out” the player can be presented with forms of payment such a token in a coin payout tray or printed on a ticket or credits to a credit, debit or smart card and that card reader and ticket printer machines are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 33);
Rowe et al., US 20030013531, discloses that when it comes wagering games, it is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art that such wagering games have wager accepting devices such as coin acceptors, bill validators, credit card readers, and other devices configured to read or accept items of value and provide a credit there for (paragraph 35);
Walker et al., US 20040038733, discloses that it is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art that output devices may comprise a plurality of display devices, such as an LED display for displaying a player’s credit balance (paragraph 64);
Reeves, US 9552693, discloses that it is well-known in the art, that a gaming machine can display a credit meter and the funds in the account of the player are movable to and from the balance of the credit meter during a play session (Col 6, line 59 to Col 7, line 4);
Nelson, US 20170092059, discloses that credit balances being established from receiving cash, ticket vouchers or promotional ticket is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art as well as it being well-known that gaming machines utilize ticket vouchers when a player wishes to leave the gaming machine and has credits remaining on the gaming machine (paragraph 6);
Walker et al., US 20060025206, discloses that a player cashing out a credit balance from a gaming device may be provided with a cashless gaming ticket, as is known in the art (paragraph 296);
The above helps to suggest that the claimed components are no more than generic well-known components.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology; there is no additional element that applies or uses 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; the additional elements merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B (Are there additional elements that are “something more” than an abstract idea?):
Dependent Claims 2-9, 11, 13-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
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 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Donavan et al., US 20150045112 (Donavan).
Regarding Claim 10.
Donavan discloses a system comprising:
a processor (para 147); and
a memory device (para 147) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to an occurrence of a designated credit meter event at a gaming device and an occurrence of a credit meter contribution event (para 99. A designated credit meter event is interpreted as a determination being made that a player’s credit balance is less than a minimum amount for playing a game but still eligible for a wager alternative. A credit meter contribution event is interpreted as a player electing to play an alternative wager.):
communicate data that causes the gaming device to reduce an amount of a credit (Fig 9A; para 98-108. Using credits for making a wager is interpreted as not cashing out in which a ticket voucher would be issued.),
contribute at least part of the reduced amount of the credit meter to a pool maintained independent of the gaming device (para 98-108), and
assign a partial entry in a drawing that occurs independent of the gaming device (para 97-98).
Regarding Claim 11.
Donavan discloses the system of Claim 10, wherein the partial entry comprises a single digit number of a multiple digit number associated with a complete entry in the drawing (Fig 9B; para 97-98).
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.
Claims 1-9, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donavan et al., US 20150045112 (Donavan) in view of Heathcote et al., US 20210134105 (Heathcote)
Regarding Claim 1.
Donavan discloses a system comprising:
a processor (para 147); and
a memory device (para 147) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to an occurrence of a designated credit meter event at a gaming device and an occurrence of a credit meter contribution event (para 99. A designated credit meter event is interpreted as a determination being made that a player’s credit balance is less than a minimum amount for playing a game but still eligible for a wager alternative. A credit meter contribution event is interpreted as a player electing to play an alternative wager.):
communicate data that causes the gaming device to reduce an amount of a credit meter without issuing any cashless ticket voucher in association with the credit meter contribution event (Fig 9A; para 98-108. Using credits for making a wager is interpreted as not cashing out in which a ticket voucher would be issued.),
contribute at least part of the reduced amount of the credit meter to a pool maintained independent of the gaming device (para 98-108).
While Donovan discloses issuing a ticket associated with an assigned quantity of entries in a drawing that occurs independent of the gaming device (para 97-98), Donovan failed to disclose wherein the issued ticket are virtual tickets. Instead, Donovan disclosed that the tickets are actually printed instead of being virtual.
However, Heathcote discloses that when it comes to the issuance of tickets for drawings, such tickets can be printed as well as virtual (para 14, 34) because such tickets can be issued a player’s personal device such as his/her personal mobile device so that the player would not need to carrying around a physical ticket (para 34)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Heathcote’s teachings with Donovan because such tickets can be issued a player’s personal device such as his/her personal mobile device so that the player would not need to carrying around a physical ticket as taught by Heathcote.
Regarding Claim 2.
Donavan and Heathcote disclose the system of Claim 1, wherein the designated credit meter event occurs based on the amount of the credit meter of the gaming device being less than a designated wager amount (para 99).
Regarding Claim 3.
Donavan and Heathcote disclose the system of Claim 2, wherein the designated wager amount comprises a minimum wager amount to play a game at the gaming device (para 99).
Regarding Claim 4.
Donavan and Heathcote disclose the system of Claim 1, wherein the credit meter contribution event occurs in association with an input to cashout the amount of the credit meter of the gaming device (para 99).
Regarding Claim 5.
Donavan and Heathcote disclose the system of Claim 1, wherein the occurrence of the credit meter contribution event is at least partially based on an identity of a user of the gaming device (para 105, 108. Since a player can be tracked based on identity, this means that when a player is being tracked for playing a wagering game, the credit meter contribution event is at least partially based on an identity of a user of the gaming device).
Regarding Claim 6.
Donavan and Heathcote disclose the system of Claim 1, wherein the drawing is associated with a loot box (Fig 9B; para 98. A ticket for a drawing for an award is interpreted as analogous to a loot box since a loot box is a lottery-based reward concept.).
Regarding Claim 7.
Donavan and Heathcote disclose the system of Claim 1, wherein the quantity of entries in the drawing is based on the reduced amount of the credit meter (para 99-106).
Regarding Claim 8.
Donavan and Heathcote disclose the system of Claim 1, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to one of the entries in the drawing of the assigned quantity of entries in the drawing being a winning entry, cause the processor to cause a supplemental award funded by the pool to be transferred to the credit meter of the gaming machine (para 53, 97-98.).
Regarding Claim 9.
Donavan and Heathcote disclose the system of Claim 1, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to one of the entries in the drawing of the assigned quantity of entries in the drawing being a winning entry, cause the processor to cause a supplemental award funded by the pool to be transferred to a gaming establishment account associated with a user of the gaming device (para 53, 97-98).
Regarding Claim 12.
Donavan discloses an electronic gaming machine comprising:
a processor (para 147); and
a memory device (para 147) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to an occurrence of a designated credit meter event and an occurrence of a credit meter contribution event (para 99):
reduce an amount of a credit meter without issuing any cashless ticket voucher in association with the credit meter contribution even (Fig 9A; para 98-108), and
communicate data that results in a contribution of at least part of the reduced amount of the credit meter to a pool maintained independent of the electronic gaming machine (para 98-108), and
While Donovan discloses issuing a ticket associated with an assigned quantity of entries in a drawing that occurs independent of the gaming device (para 97-98), Donovan failed to disclose wherein the issued ticket are virtual tickets. Instead, Donovan disclosed that the tickets are actually printed instead of being virtual.
However, Heathcote discloses that when it comes to the issuance of tickets for drawings, such tickets can be printed as well as virtual (para 14, 34) because such tickets can be issued a player’s personal device such as his/her personal mobile device so that the player would not need to carrying around a physical ticket (para 34)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Heathcote’s teachings with Donovan because such tickets can be issued a player’s personal device such as his/her personal mobile device so that the player would not need to carrying around a physical ticket as taught by Heathcote.
Regarding Claim 13.
Donavan and Heathcote disclose the electronic gaming machine of Claim 12, Donovan further disclosing wherein the designated credit meter event occurs based on the amount of the credit meter being less than a designated wager amount (para 99).
Regarding Claim 14.
Donavan and Heathcote disclose the electronic gaming machine of Claim 13, Donovan further disclosing, wherein the designated wager amount comprises a minimum wager amount to play a game (para 99).
Regarding Claim 15.
Donavan and Heathcote disclose the electronic gaming machine of Claim 13, Donovan further disclosing, wherein the designated wager amount comprises a maximum wager amount to play a game (para 99).
Regarding Claim 16.
Donavan and Heathcote disclose the electronic gaming machine of Claim 12, Donovan further disclosing, wherein the credit meter contribution event occurs in association with an input to cashout the amount of the credit meter (para 99).
Regarding Claim 17.
Donavan and Heathcote disclose the electronic gaming machine of Claim 12, Donovan further disclosing wherein the occurrence of the credit meter contribution event is at least partially based on an identity of a user (para 105, 108)
Regarding Claim 18.
Donavan and Heathcote disclose the electronic gaming machine of Claim 12, Donovan further disclosing wherein the drawing is associated with a loot box (Fig 9B; para 98. A ticket for a drawing for an award is interpreted as analogous to a loot box since a loot box is a lottery-based reward concept.).
Regarding Claim 19.
Donavan and Heathcote disclose the electronic gaming machine of Claim 12, Donovan further disclosing wherein the quantity of entries in the drawing is based on the reduced amount of the credit meter (para 99-106).
Regarding Claim 20.
Donavan and Heathcote disclose the electronic gaming machine of Claim 12, Donovan further disclosing wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to a receipt of data that one of the entries in the drawing of the assigned quantity of entries in the drawing is a winning entry, cause the processor to increase the amount of the credit meter based on a supplemental award funded by the pool (para 53, 97-98.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments in regards to the previously presented 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered are not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
Applicant argues that that the elements of the claimed gaming systems integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by alleging that the claimed invention provides a solution to the recognized problem with prior systems that failed to address the burdens associated with cashless ticket vouchers on users and gaming establishments, especially low-value printed cashless ticket vouchers. and utilizing an interface that employs movement of a previously accumulated symbol out of a symbol accumulation display position and improved way to handle a credit meter contribution event when an amount of a credit meter of a gaming device is less than a designated wager amount. (starting near top of page 9 to bottom of page 7).
The Examiner disagrees because there appears to be no change to the actual gaming system, as claimed, nor any technological improvements. There is simply no specificity detailed that provides any explicit technological improvements to the gaming system itself (ie: the game system operates the same regardless of which rules it is following). It appears Applicant is alleging that, since the virtual tickets being assigned, the claims set forth a practical application of an abstract idea utilizing virtual tickets instead of printed tickets. The claims merely recite gaming systems that, at best, include a processor, and a memory device in which the gaming system through generic computing elements is simply carrying out or applies the game rules as claimed. As such, there appears to be no alleged technical improvements to the functioning of the gaming system. In this case, the claimed invention is interpreted as merely “virtualizing” the issuance of an assigned quantity of entries into a drawing without actually issuing a physical ticket. The Examiner believes that using a computer for issuing a virtual ticket is merely “applying” game rules on using general-purpose computer components. In other words, similar to how an abstract idea, such as a playing Blackjack (ie: an abstract idea comprising method of organizing human activities pertaining to game rules) being “virtualized”, the claimed invention share similarities, namely the “virtualization” of the issuance of “virtual tickets” associated with an assigned quantity of entries in a drawing.
Accordingly, the Examiner must respectfully disagree that the claims recite patent-eligible methods for at least the reasons recited in the rejection as presented above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejection of claims 1-9 and 12-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JEFFREY WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEFFREY K WONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3715