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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11922390. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because recite substantially the same matter, prior to amendments made to incorporate
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,3,8-16,18,19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Buibas 10282720.
Regarding Claim 1, Buibas discloses
collecting a payment mechanism associated with a vehicle station at a vehicle service site;
Buibas is directed to system for cashierless shopping at a gas station. (Buibas, abstract, “A system that analyzes camera images to track a person from a point where the person obtains an authorization to a different point where the authorization is used. The authorization may be extended in time and space from the point where it was initially obtained. Scenarios enabled by embodiments include automatically opening a locked door or gate for an authorized person and automatically charging items taken by a person to that person's account. Supports automated stores that allow users to enter, take products and exit without explicitly paying. An illustrative application is an automated, unmanned gas station that allows a user to pay at the pump and then enter a locked on-site convenience store or a locked case with products the user can take for automatic purchase. Embodiments may also extend authorization to other people, such as occupants of the same vehicle.”). Buibas discloses a customer can pay with a credit card at a pump and also pay for items at a convenience store with the same credit card authorization. (Buibas, col.2,lns.5-15, “For example, a customer of an automated gas station may provide a credit card at a gas pump to purchase gas, and then enter an automated convenience store at the gas station to purchase products; ideally the credit card authorization obtained at the gas pump would be extended to the convenience store, so that the customer could enter the store (possibly through a locked door that is automatically unlocked for this customer), and take products and have them charged to the same card.”)
collecting image data in a defined region containing the vehicle station and a defined commerce region;
initializing monitoring of at least one detected user associated with the vehicle station;
monitoring commerce activity of the user, which comprises of: through CV processing of image data, detecting at least one commerce activity event involving the user and updating a checkout list associated with the user based on the commerce activity event; and
executing a transaction with the payment mechanism for the checkout list.
“This example is also similar to the example illustrated in FIG. 2, with the addition that an authorization is obtained by person 1901 at pump 1902, prior to entering the convenience store 1903. External cameras 1911, 1912 and 1913 track person 1901 to the entrance 1908 and processor 130 unlocks lock 1909 so that person 1901 may enter the store. Afterwards images from internal cameras such as camera 202 track the person inside the store and the processor analyzes these images to determine that the person takes item 111 from shelf 102. At exit 201, message 203a is generated to automatically charge the account of the person for the item; the message may also be sent to a display in the store (or for example on the person's mobile phone) indicating what item or items are to be charged. In one or more embodiments the person may be able to enter a confirmation or to make modifications before the charge is transmitted. In one or more embodiments the processor 130 may also transmit an unlock message 2201 to unlock the exit door; this barrier at the exit may for example force unauthorized persons in the store to provide a payment mechanism prior to exiting.” (Buibas, col.27,lns.20-40)
Regarding Claim 3, Buibas discloses the method of claim 1.
receiving payment authorization for the payment mechanism from a payment interface at the vehicle station.
See prior art rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, Buibas discloses the method of claim 1.
detecting a set of users exiting a vehicle;
monitoring commerce activity of the set of users; and executing one or more
transactions with the payment mechanism for one or more checkout lists generated
from monitoring commerce activity of the set of users.
“In one or more embodiments, an authorization may be extended from one person to another person, such as another person who is in the same vehicle as the person with the credential. The processor may analyze camera images to determine that one person exits a vehicle and then presents a credential, resulting in an authorization. If a second person exits the same vehicle, that second person may also be authorized to perform certain actions, such as entering a secured area or taking items that will be charge to the account associated with the credential. Tracking the second person and determining what items that person takes may be performed as described above for the person who presents the credential. “(Buibas, col.7,lns.24-36)
Regarding Claim 9, Buibas discloses the method of claim 8.
configuring usage policy by vehicle passenger and enforcing usage policy during monitoring of commerce activity of the set of users.
“The next screen shown in FIG. 25B asks the user whether to extend authorization to purchases as the attached convenience store; this authorization may for example allow access to the store through the locked door and may charge items taken by the user automatically to the user's account. The next screen in FIG. 25C asks the user if he or she wants to extend authorization to other occupants of the vehicle (as in FIG. 24).” (Buibas, col.28,lns.44-60)
Regarding Claim 10, Buibas discloses the method of claim 9.
displaying passenger usage policy at the vehicle station and receiving user selection of usage policy thereby configuring the usage policy.
See prior art rejection of claim 9.
Regarding Claim 11, Buibas discloses the method of claim 1.
triggering checkout process feedback to a signal device indicating the user's approval state for automated commerce.
“This message may for example trigger an automated charge 211 for the item (or items) believed to be taken by person 103, which may for example be sent to financial institution or system 212. In one or more embodiments a message 213 may also be displayed or otherwise transmitted to person 103 confirming the charge, e.g., on the person's electronic device 119 shown in FIG. 1. The message 213 may for example be displayed on a display visible to the person exiting or in the checkout area, or it may be transmitted for example via a text message or email to the person, for example to a computer or mobile device 119 (see FIG. 1) associated with the user.” (Buibas, col.12,lns.55-67)
Regarding Claim 12, Buibas discloses the method of claim 11.
wherein triggering checkout process feedback comprises tracking location of the user using computer vision processing of the image data and when the user is detected in proximity to the signal device activating the signal device to an approved state if a payment mechanism is collected for the user and there is no issue with the checkout list.
“FIG. 2 continues the example of FIG. 1 to show an automated checkout. In one or more embodiments, processor 130 or another linked system may detect that a person 103 is leaving a store or is entering an automated checkout area. For example, a camera or cameras such as camera 202 may track person 103 as he or she exits the store. If the system 130 has determined that person 103 has an item, such as item 111 and if the system is configured to support automated checkout, then it may transmit a message 203 or otherwise interface with a checkout system such as a point of sale system 210. This message may for example trigger an automated charge 211 for the item (or items) believed to be taken by person 103, which may for example be sent to financial institution or system 212. In one or more embodiments a message 213 may also be displayed or otherwise transmitted to person 103 confirming the charge, e.g., on the person's electronic device 119 shown in FIG. 1.” (Buibas, col.12,lns.45-67)
Regarding Claim 13, Buibas discloses the method of claim 11.
wherein triggering checkout process feedback comprises tracking location of the user using computer vision processing of the image data and when the user is detected in proximity to the signal device activating the signal device to a restricted state if a payment mechanism is not collected for the user or an issue is detected with the checkout list.
Buibas discloses tracking customers, and unlocking entry to a cashierless store if they have presented payment credentials at a fuel pump. Conversely, a customer is restricted from entry if they have not presented payment at the pump. (Buibas, col.6, lns.20-35 ,“The person may present a credential, such as a credit card, to a credential receiver, such as a card reader, at a first location and at a first time, and may then receive an authorization; the authorization may also be received by the processor. The person may then move to a second location at a second time. At this second location, an entry to a secured environment may be located, and the entry may be secured by a controllable barrier such as a lock. The processor may associate the authorization with the person by relating the time that the credential was presented, or the authorization was received, with the time that the person was at the first location where the credential receiver is located. The processor may then allow the person to enter the secured environment by transmitting an allow entry command to the controllable barrier when the person is at the entry point of the secured environment.” ).
Regarding Claim 14, Buibas discloses the method of claim 1.
wherein detecting at least one commerce activity event
involving the user and updating a checkout list associated with the user based on the
commerce activity event comprises:
classifying product items from the image data from the commerce region with
product identifiers associated with pricing information,
tracking user location in the environment,
detecting user-item interaction events, wherein detection of one user-item
interaction event comprises of detecting a user selecting a product, and
updating the checkout list according to product identifiers, user location, and the detected user-item interaction events.
“One or more embodiments described in the specification are related to an automated store system that analyzes camera images to track people and their interactions with items. One or more embodiments include a processor that is configured to obtain a 3D model of a store that contains items and item storage areas. The processor receives a respective time sequence of images from cameras in the store, wherein the time sequence of images is captured over a time period and analyzes the time sequence of images from each camera and the 3D model of the store to detect a person in the store based on the time sequence of images, calculate a trajectory of the person across the time period, identify an item storage area of the item storage areas that is proximal to the trajectory of the person during an interaction time period within the time period, analyze two or more images of the time sequence of images to identify an item of the items within the item storage area that moves during the interaction time period, wherein the two or more images are captured within or proximal in time to the interaction time period and the two or more images contain views of the item storage area and attribute motion of the item to the person. One or more embodiments of the system rely on images for tracking and do not utilize item tags, for example RFID tags or other identifiers on the items that are manipulated and thus do not require identifier scanners. In addition, one or more embodiments of the invention enable a “virtual door” where entry and exit of users triggers a start or stop of the tracker, i.e., via images and computer vision. Other embodiments may utilize physical gates or electronic check-in and check-out, e.g., using QR codes or Bluetooth, but these solutions add complexity that other embodiments of the invention do not require. At least one embodiment of the processor is further configured to interface with a point of sale computer and charge an amount associated with the item to the person without a cashier. Optionally, a description of the item is sent to a mobile device associated with the person and wherein the processor or point of sale computer is configured to accept a confirmation from the mobile device that the item is correct or in dispute. In one or more embodiments, a list of the items associated with a particular user, for example a shopping cart list associated with the shopper, may be sent to a display near the shopper or that is closest to the shopper.” (Buibas, summary)
Regarding Claim 15, Buibas discloses the method of claim 1.
wherein detecting at least one commerce activity event
involving the user and updating a checkout list associated with the user based on the
commerce activity event comprises:
detecting user-item interaction events, wherein detection of one user-item
interaction event comprises of detecting use of an item, and
updating the checkout list according to use of the item.
“In one or more embodiments, camera images may be supplemented with other sensor data to determine which products are removed or the quantity of a product that is taken or dispensed. For example, a product shelf such as shelf 102 may have weight sensors or motion sensors that assist in detecting that products are taken, moved, or replaced on the shelf. One or more embodiments may receive and process data indicating the quantity of a product that is taken or dispensed, and may attribute this quantity to a person, for example to charge this quantity to the person's account. For example, a dispenser of a liquid such as a beverage may have a flow sensor that measures the amount of liquid dispensed; data from the flow sensor may be transmitted to the system to attribute this amount to a person proximal to the dispenser at the time of dispensing. A person may also press a button or provide other input to determine what products or quantities should be dispensed; data from the button or other input device may be transmitted to the system to determine what items and quantities to attribute to a person.” (Buibas, col.12,lns.25-45)
Regarding Claim 16, Buibas discloses the method of claim 1.
wherein the vehicle station is a fueling station.
See prior art rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claims 18,19
See prior art rejection of claim 1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 4,6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buibas 10282720 in view of “Chevron rolls out first gas pumps with Apple Pay support”, 2015,
https://appleinsider.com/articles/15/07/14/chevron-rolls-out-first-gas-pumps-with-apple-pay-support
Regarding Claim 4, Buibas discloses the method of claim 1. Buibas does not explicitly disclose
wherein collecting a payment mechanism associated with a vehicle station comprises: storing a payment mechanism in association with an account, detecting presence of an identifying signal associated with the account in proximity to the vehicle station, and upon detecting the identifying signal, selecting the payment mechanism associated with the account.
Appleinsider is an article discussing Apple Pay payments at gas stations. (Tyrone, p.1). Appleinsider discloses that Apple Watch users may use NFC wireless payments to pay for fuel using their Apple Pay account at Chevron gas dispensers. Id. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Buibas with Appleinsider with the motivation of more efficient payments. Id.
Regarding Claim 6, Buibas and Appleinsider disclose the method of claim 4. Buibas does not explicitly disclose
wherein detecting presence of the identifying signal comprises of detecting device presence at the location of the vehicle service state.
See prior art rejection of claim 4. The examiner interprets Apple Watch NFC payment to be detecting presence of a device.
Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buibas 10282720 in view of “Chevron rolls out first gas pumps with Apple Pay support”, 2015,
https://appleinsider.com/articles/15/07/14/chevron-rolls-out-first-gas-pumps-with-apple-pay-support in view of Scholllerman ( DE102009049754A1, machine translation)
Regarding Claim 5, Buibas and Appleinsider disclose the method of claim 4.
Buibas does not explicitly disclose
wherein detecting presence of the identifying signal comprises of identifying a vehicle through CV processing of collected image data, wherein the identity of the identified vehicle is associated with the account.
Schollerman is directed to a camera based vehicle payment system. (Scholllerman, abtract). Schollerman discloses that vehicle payment can be effectuated by payment credentials associated with the license plate of a vehicle. (Schollerman, p.2, “The invention provides a method for performing a financial transaction between a first transaction unit and a vehicle, in particular a motor vehicle, as a second transaction unit. In the method, a first communication link is established between the first transaction unit and the vehicle. Via the first communication connection, the vehicle transmits data to the first transaction unit, which comprise at least one identification data characterizing the vehicle. Such identification date may be, for example, the license plate of the vehicle. Subsequently, the at least one identification data is visually verified by an object recognition system of the first transaction unit. Upon successful verification, parameters relating to the transaction are transmitted from the first transaction unit to the vehicle via the first communication link. Subsequently, at least one transaction-confirming date is transmitted to the first transaction unit by the vehicle when an actuation command has been detected by a man-machine interface of the vehicle. The affirmative date is not transmitted to the first transaction unit if no acknowledgment command has been detected by the man-machine interface.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Buibas and Appleinsider with the license plate of Schollerman with the motivation of making vehicle based payments. Id.
Claim 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buibas 10282720 in view of “Chevron rolls out first gas pumps with Apple Pay support”, 2015,
https://appleinsider.com/articles/15/07/14/chevron-rolls-out-first-gas-pumps-with-apple-pay-support in view of Official Notice
Regarding Claim 7, Buibas and Appleinsider disclose the method of claim 4. Buibas does not explicitly disclose
in response to collecting the payment mechanism associated with a vehicle station, transmitting a vehicle station command signal activating the vehicle station.
The examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known for a signal to activate a fuel pump. For example, a gas station payment system may acknowledge a payment authorization and send a confirmation to a fuel pump to begin dispensing fuel. It can be seen that all the claimed elements are taught by Buibas, Appleinsider or Official notice. The activation signal by official notice does not change the functions taught by Buibas or Appleinsider. Paying for gas station services would be performed the same way independent of how the fuel dispenser is activated. Since the function of the elements in Buibas, Appleinsider and official notice do not interfere with each other the results would be predictable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the system of Buibas and Applieinsider a fuel pump activation signal as taught by official notice since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buibas 10282720 in view of Håkansson , “This is what the future gas station will look like”,2016,
https://web.archive.org/web/20160407025040/https://new.abb.com/ev-charging/articles/ev-charging-at-gas-stations
Regarding Claim 17, Buibas discloses the method of claim 1.
Buibas does not explicitly disclose
wherein the vehicle station is an electric vehicle charging station.
The examiner notes that Buibas discloses cashierless purchases in a gas station store following receiving payment at a station fuel pump. (See prior art rejection of claim 1. Håkansson discloses that gas stations operate a wide variety of different stations offering different fuel. (Håkansson, p.2, “We offer different kinds of diesel, ethanol and gasoline and of course electricity through our DC fast charger,” says the station manager Kristin Larsson.”). Buibas differs from the claimed invention by the substitution of a fuel pump for an EV charging station at a vehicle service station. The functions of fuel pumps and EV stations are known in the art. (e.g. they fuel different types of vehicles). One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Substituting a EV station for a fuel pump would simply allow an EV owner to pay to fuel a vehicle at a vehicle service station. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 2 recites “further comprising providing a user interface at the vehicle station; and at the user interface, presenting an option for camera-based commerce automation and receiving user selection of an option for automated commerce; wherein initializing monitoring is triggered at least partially based on received user selection of the option for automated commerce.”
The examiner notes that Buibas discloses configuring cashierless shopping at a gas station convenience store at a fuel pump. (“The next screen shown in FIG. 25B asks the user whether to extend authorization to purchases as the attached convenience store; this authorization may for example allow access to the store through the locked door and may charge items taken by the user automatically to the user's account. The next screen in FIG. 25C asks the user if he or she wants to extend authorization to other occupants of the vehicle (as in FIG. 24).”). However Buibas is silent as to how initializing user monitoring is triggered.
Conclusion
Relevant art not relied on but made of record include
“European début: The first hybrid supermarket offering checkout-free payment officially opens to the public”, 10/2021, https://www.rewe-group.com/en/press-and-media/newsroom/press-releases/european-debut-the-first-hybrid-supermarket-offering-checkout-free-payment-officially-opens-to-the-public/ “REWE is the first food retailer in Germany to offer customers a hybrid shopping experience. Shoppers can either pay at checkout or use the innovative, checkout-free Pick&Go option. After an intensive five-month trial, this high-tech system is now being rolled out for customers in Cologne as a new way to shop. When customers choose to Pick&Go, their purchases are captured securely using camera and sensor technology designed to minimise the data collected. Once customers leave the store, they are billed automatically without stopping to check out.
This is a continuation of applicant's earlier Application No. 17588125. All claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the earlier application and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no, however, event 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 ALLEN C CHEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/ALLEN C CHEIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627