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 Claims
Claims 2, 10, 16, and 20 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. Thus, claims 1-20 remain pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 that “the Applicant’s specification describes that the disclosed techniques for automated outfit creation using generative artificial intelligence solve the problems associated with online marketplaces which have ever-changing inventories.… The claims reflect an improvement in the technical field of automated outfit curation from the listings of an online marketplace using generative artificial intelligence.” The Examiner disagrees. While the claims recite an improvement to the abstract idea of outfit creation, that improvement is not technical; rather, it is a business improvement. To demonstrate that the involvement of a computer improves the technology, the claims must recite details about how the computer assists the method, the extent to which the computer assists the method, or the significance of the computer to the method’s performance. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, a claim must include more than simple instructions to perform the method on generic hardware or machinery to qualify as an improvement to existing technology (see MPEP §2106.05(II)).
Applicant contends that YesPlz is not well-known or reputable, and notes that the Wayback Machine indicates that the page was first crawled in January 2025 , with an embedded YouTube video dated October 2023, both postdating the application’s priority date. The Examiner, however, asserts that YesPlz is prior art and provides links to additional webpages suggesting that YesPlz is a reputable company using artificial intelligence to curate outfits. These sources appear to show that YesPlz possessed the technology disclosed in the originally cited prior art. For reference, see (1) YesPlz AI launches ChatGPT Fashion Stylist | Retail Tech News USA (April 20, 2023) (https://apparelresources.com/technology-news/retail-tech/yesplz-ai-launches-chatgpt-fashion-stylist/).
(2) Would You Trust ChatGPT to Pick Your Outfit? | BoF (April 5, 2023 (https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/technology/can-ai-find-you-the-perfect-outfit/), and (3) Fashion and retail are ripe for disruption: The promise of generative AI - Inside Retail Asia (April 18, 2023) (https://insideretail.asia/2023/04/18/fashion-and-retail-are-ripe-for-disruption-the-promise-of-generative-ai/). (Note: that these references are not being relied upon in the rejection; they are only being used to substantiate that the original disclosure by YesPlz is valid).
Applicant further argues that claim 6 is not taught by the combination of Wang, YesPlz, and Iu et al. However, Examiner asserts, that Iu et al at para 0110 broadly describes extracting attributes from an image of a seed “As used herein, seed may refer to a piece of content, such as a piece of text, an image, or an audio recording. In some implementations, prompt generation subsystem 302 extracts the seed from application software system 240. For instance, in the domain of professional social network services or search engines, prompt generation subsystem 302 extracts a trending or highly popular skill description from a social network and uses the extracted skill description as a seed for the generated prompt 304.” While the seed item is not a clothing item, YesPlz describes a seed item as a clothing item. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on an individual element or function but the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the attributes of the clothing item of YesPlz for the attributes of Iu et al.
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 they are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 16, and 20 recite generating, based on a seed clothing item, a prompt to create an outfit that includes the seed clothing item, the prompt including clothing attributes of the seed clothing item; providing the prompt to initiate a search of an online marketplace to locate complementary clothing items for the outfit that are available on the online marketplace; responsive to the search initiated, receiving search results containing listings of the complementary clothing items for the outfit that are available on the online marketplace; and arranging the listings of the complementary clothing items for the outfit for user selection.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, or business relations). Specifically, recommending complementary clothing based on a seed clothing item for purchase from an online marketplace is an advertising, marketing, or sales activity or behavior.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 16, and 20 recite the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: “computer-implemented”(claim 1) “user interface” (claim 1), “an online marketplace” (claim 16), “at least one computing device” (claim 16), and “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, responsive to execution by one or more processors, perform operations” (claim 20). These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional element of “a generative artificial intelligence” (claims 1, 16, and 20) merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment in which to carry out the judicial exception. Even viewed as an ordered combination, the additional elements are still mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and a general link to a technological field.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented above. The claims as a whole merely describes how to apply the concept of recommending complementary clothing based on a seed clothing item for purchase from an online marketplace on a general-purpose computer. Moreover, the additional elements are known and conventional computing elements as evidenced by the spec at para 0048-0050 and 0057—describing these elements at a high level of generality. Thus, even when viewed as whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-15 and 17-19 recite additional details that further narrow the previously recited abstract idea but for the additional elements of “an interface” (claim 8) “camera” (claim 8). The interface is a generic computer component performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. The camera is insignificant extra-solution activity used for data collection. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Moreover, the additional elements are known and conventional computing elements as evidenced by the spec at para 0048-0050 and para 0109-- describing these elements at a high level of generality. Thus, even when viewed as whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 10-12, 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US2024/0241897) in view of YesPlz.AI (https://yesplz.ai/resource/introducing-the-worlds-first-ai-stylist-powered-by-chatgpt-for-fashion).
As per claims 1, 16, 17, and 20, Wang et al discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
generating, based on a seed item, a prompt for input to generative artificial intelligence (0048; 0059; 0095; responsive to search query for an item, a prompt is generated; the query is for an item “milk”) ;
providing the prompt to the generative artificial intelligence to cause the generative artificial intelligence to initiate a search of an online marketplace to locate for complementary items that are available on the online marketplace (0023; 0048; 0059; 0061; 0063; 0065; 0119; orders can be from one or more retailers; provide the generated prompt to the search and recommendation model for obtain complementary items including pricing and availability through connecting to a database; generate a search type prompt; relatedness of the predicted items);
responsive to the search initiated by the generative artificial intelligence, receiving search results containing listings of the complementary items that are available on the marketplace (0102; 0103; provide results) ; and
arranging the listings of the complementary items in a user interface for user selection (0024).
While Wang et al discloses a seed item to generate a prompt to initiate a search for complementary items, Wang et al does not disclose, however YesPlz.AI discloses the seed item is a clothing item (pg. 7; show me 5 style ideas for a denim jacket); the prompt is to create an outfit that includes the seed clothing item, the prompt including clothing attributes of the seed clothing item(pg. 3, ask a prompt like “suggest work tops”; pg. 7; show me 5 style ideas for a denim jacket); and the complementary item is a complementary clothing item for the outfit (pg. 3; receive matching products, styles, and suggestions; pg. 10, complementary products; pg. 7; responses are formatted in lists along with integrated product images; pg.8; adding integrated, clickable products in the responses for shoppers).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself— that is in the substitution of the clothing items and prompts of YesPlz.AI for items and prompts of Wang et al. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing the predictable result of having access to millions of curated fashion styles tailored to you, all at your fingertips (YesPlz.AI pg. 2)
As per claim 2, Wang et al further discloses wherein the prompt is automatically generated in response to a request to locate the items, the request identifying the seed item (0048; 0059; 0061; 0063; 0065; 0119; provide the generated prompt to the search and recommendation model for obtain complementary items including pricing and availability through connecting to a database; generate a search type prompt; relatedness of the predicted items). Wang et al does not disclose, YesPlz.AI discloses the item is a clothing item; and the request is to locate a complementary clothing item for the outfit the request identifying the seed clothing item (pg. 7; show me 5 style ideas for a denim jacket; pg. 3, ask a prompt like “suggest work tops”; pg. 7; show me 5 style ideas for a denim jacket). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself— that is in the substitution of the clothing items and prompts of YesPlz.AI for items and prompts of Wang et al. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing the predictable result of having access to millions of curated fashion styles tailored to you, all at your fingertips (YesPlz.AI pg. 2).
As per claim 3, Wang et al does not disclose, however YesPlz.AI discloses wherein the request identifies a style for the outfit (pg.3; chic and comfortable, for a BBQ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include the request of YesPlz.Ai in the invention of Wang et al for having access to millions of curated fashion styles tailored to you, all at your fingertips (YesPlz.AI pg. 2)
As per claim 4, Wang et al further discloses wherein the prompt is generated based at least in part on the request (0048; 0059; 0095; responsive to search query for an item, a prompt is generated; the query is for an item “milk”). Wang et al does not disclose, however YesPlz.Ai discloses the request is for a style for the outfit (pg.3; chic and comfortable, for a BBQ). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself— that is in the substitution of the request of YesPlz.AI for the requests of Wang et al. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing the predictable result of having access to millions of curated fashion styles tailored to you, all at your fingertips (YesPlz.Ai pg. 2).
As per claim 10, Wang et al further disclose wherein the generative artificial intelligence initiates the search of the online marketplace by automatically generating search queries to locate the complementary items, wherein the search queries are automatically provided to a search interface of the online marketplace (0023; 0048; 0059; 0061; 0063; 0065; 0119; orders can be from one or more retailers; provide the generated prompt to the search and recommendation model for obtain complementary items including pricing and availability from one or more retailers; generate a search type prompt.) Wang et al does not disclose, YesPlz.AI discloses the item is a clothing item; and the request is to locate a complementary clothing item for the outfit the request identifying the seed clothing item (pg. 7; show me 5 style ideas for a denim jacket; pg. 3, ask a prompt like “suggest work tops”; pg. 7; show me 5 style ideas for a denim jacket). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself— that is in the substitution of the clothing items and prompts of YesPlz.AI for items and prompts of Wang et al. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing the predictable result of having access to millions of curated fashion styles tailored to you, all at your fingertips (YesPlz.AI pg. 2).
As per claim 11, Wang et al further discloses wherein the online marketplace includes a database of listings of items that continuously changes as different listings of items are added and removed from the database (0034; 0055). Wang et al does not disclose, however YesPlz.Ai discloses the item is a clothing item (pg. 7; show me 5 style ideas for a denim jacket). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself— that is in the substitution of the clothing item of YesPlz.AI for the item of Wang et al. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing the predictable result of having access to millions of curated fashion styles tailored to you, all at your fingertips (YesPlz.Ai pg. 2).
As per claim 12, Wang et al further discloses wherein the search results contain listings of the complementary items that are currently available in the database of listings (0034, 0067). Wang et al does not disclose, however YesPlz.Ai discloses the complementary item is a clothing item (pg. 3; receive matching products, styles, and suggestions; pg. 10, complementary products). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself— that is in the substitution of the complementary clothing item of YesPlz.AI for the complementary item of Wang et al. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing the predictable result of having access to millions of curated fashion styles tailored to you, all at your fingertips (YesPlz.Ai pg. 2).
Claims 5-6 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US2024/0241897) in view of YesPlz.AI (https://yesplz.ai/resource/introducing-the-worlds-first-ai-stylist-powered-by-chatgpt-for-fashion) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Iu et al (US2024/0273286).
As per claims 5 and 18, Wang et al in view of YesPlz.AI disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 16. YesPlz.AI further discloses a seed clothing item (pg. 7). Wang et al in view of YesPlz.AI do not disclose, however Iu et al discloses wherein generating the prompt further comprises: extracting the clothing attributes of the seed item and incorporating the attributes of the seed item into preconfigured text of the prompt (0095; 0110; 0136). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include the prompting of Iu et al in the invention of Wang et al in view of YesPlz.Ai for personalized content creation.
As per claims 6 and 19, Wang et al in view of YesPlz.AI and Iu et al disclose all the limitations of claims 5 and 18. YesPlz.AI further discloses a seed clothing item (pg. 7). Wang et al in view of YesPlz.AI does not disclose, however, Iu et al discloses wherein the clothing attributes of the seed clothing item are extracted from an image of the seed clothing item (0110). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include clothing attributes of Iu et al in the invention of Wang et al in view of YesPlz.Ai for personalized content creation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US2024/0241897) in view of YesPlz.AI (https://yesplz.ai/resource/introducing-the-worlds-first-ai-stylist-powered-by-chatgpt-for-fashion) in view of Iu et al (US2024/0273286) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Bhardwaj et al (US 2014/0310304).
As per claim 7, Wang et al in view of YesPlz.AI and Iu et al disclose all the limitations of claim 6. YesPlz.AI further discloses the seed clothing item (pg. 7). Wang et al in view of YesPlz.AI and Iu et al do not disclose, however Bhardwaj et al discloses further comprising displaying one or more interactive elements to facilitate selection of the clothing item from the image of the clothing item (0025). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include the interactive elements of Bhardwaj et al in the invention of Wang et al in view of YesPlz.AI and Iu et al to facilitate input more efficiently (Bhardwaj et al, 0003)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US2024/0241897) in view of YesPlz.AI (https://yesplz.ai/resource/introducing-the-worlds-first-ai-stylist-powered-by-chatgpt-for-fashion) in view of Iu et al (US2024/0273286) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Mourkogiannis et al (US 2021/0405831).
As per claim 8, Wang et al in view of YesPlz.AI and Iu et al disclose all the limitations of claim 6. Wang et al in view of YesPlz.AI and Iu et al do not disclose, however Mourkogiannis et al discloses further comprising: outputting an interface to capture the image of the seed clothing item; and receiving, via the interface, input to initiate the capture of the seed clothing item using a camera (0103, 0104. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include the image capturing of Mourkogiannis et al in the invention of Wang et al in view of YesPlz.Ai and Iu et al for user satisfaction by being customizable.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US2024/0241897) in view of YesPlz.AI (https://yesplz.ai/resource/introducing-the-worlds-first-ai-stylist-powered-by-chatgpt-for-fashion) and Iu et al (US2024/0273286) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Konik et al (US 2017/0046764).
As per claim 9, Wang et al in view of YesPlz.AI and Iu et al disclose all the limitations of claim 5. YesPlz.AI further discloses a seed clothing item with clothing attributes (pg. 3, ask a prompt like “suggest work tops”; pg. 7; show me 5 style ideas for a denim jacket). Wang et al in view of YesPlz.AI and Iu et al do not disclose, however, Konik et al discloses wherein the item attributes of the seed item are extracted from a listing of the seed item on the online marketplace (0062). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include extracting item attributes from a listing in the invention of Wang et al in view of YesPlz.Ai and Iu et al to further refine the search/results to achieve better recommendations.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US2024/0241897) in view of YesPlz.AI (https://yesplz.ai/resource/introducing-the-worlds-first-ai-stylist-powered-by-chatgpt-for-fashion) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mourkogiannis et al (US 2021/0405831).
As per claim 13, Wang et al in view of YesPlz.AI disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Wang et al in view of YesPlz.AI do not disclose, however Mourkogiannis et al discloses further comprising generating an avatar wearing the seed clothing item and the complementary clothing items (0111; 0112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include the avatar of Mourkogiannis et al in the invention of Wang et al in view of YesPlz.Ai for user satisfaction by being customizable.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US2024/0241897) in view of YesPlz.AI (https://yesplz.ai/resource/introducing-the-worlds-first-ai-stylist-powered-by-chatgpt-for-fashion) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Talbot (US 11,100,552).
As per claim 14, Wang et al in view of YesPlz.AI disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Wang et al further discloses wherein providing the prompt to the generative artificial intelligence causes the generative artificial intelligence to initiate a search of an online marketplace to locate complementary items (0023; 0048; 0059; 0061; 0063; 0065; 0119; orders can be from one or more retailers; provide the generated prompt to the search and recommendation model for obtain complementary items including pricing and availability through connecting to a database; generate a search type prompt; relatedness of the predicted items). Wang et al in view of YesPlz.AI does not disclose, however Talbot et al discloses clothing complementary items for multiple different outfits that are available on the online marketplace, wherein each of the multiple different outfits are associated with a different style (Fig. 6, “625”). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself— that is in the substitution of the clothing complementary items for multiple different outfits and styles of Talbot et al for the complementary item of Wang et al in view of YesPlz.AI. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing the predictable result of a customer being able to readily visualize different combinations to make a better decision (Talbot et al col, 1, lines 20-24).
As per claim 15, Wang et al in view of YesPlz.AI disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Wang et al does not disclose, however YesPlz.AI discloses wherein the seed clothing item corresponds to a category of clothing items, wherein the category of the seed clothing item comprises one of headwear, a top layer, a bottom layer, shoes, or an accessory, and wherein the complementary clothing items correspond to different categories of clothing items that are different than the category of the seed clothing item (col 2, lines 31-47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include the term categories of Talbot et al in the invention of Wang et al in view of YesPlz.Ai so that a customer being able to readily visualize different combinations to make a better decision (Talbot et al col, 1, lines 20-24).
Conclusion
Pertinent Prior art: Kocienda et al ( 20240310900) discloses [0328] The user can point the camera of the electronic device towards a piece of clothing, and ask for similar pieces of clothes and/or add to a curation for an outfit [0329] The user can ask the electronic device for similar pieces of clothing (e.g., a better price, or to explore other options). [0330] The user could hold a piece of clothing in front of the electronic device, and ask the electronic device other pieces of clothing that could complete an outfit (e.g., by holding a shirt, and asking for matching pants). [0331] The user can point the camera of the electronic device had any object, including clothing, furniture, vehicles, personal items, wares, or any other physical goods. [0332] The user can specify criteria (e.g., criteria regarding price, shipping time, eco-friendly rating, and/or any other criteria), and instruct the electronic device to find products satisfying the criteria (e.g., “find a couch similar to this one that fits within my budget.”)
Personalized Generative Artificial Intelligence for Outfit Selection by Suarth Sundram et al (08 Aug 2023)
OutfitGAN: Learning Compatible Items for Generative Fashion Outfits by Moosaei et al (2022) discloses a Generative Adversarial Network and a Compatibility Network. The generative module is able to generate new realistic high quality fashion items from a specific category, while the compatibility network ensures reasonable compatibility among all items.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHANNON S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-5587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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. 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.
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628