DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 12/12/2025.
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 .
Specification
The new title of the invention filed on 12/12/2025 is acceptable.
Claims Status
Claims 1 and 19-37 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1, 36 and 37 are independent.
Claims 19-37 are newly added.
Claims 2-18 are newly canceled.
Claim 1 is newly amended.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 19, 22-26, 29-33 and 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Medina; Fernando Reyes (hereinafter Medina – US 20160034179 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Medina teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
providing, for display, a keyboard that has a QWERTY layout, wherein the keyboard is split into a first keyboard portion and a second keyboard portion; (displaying keyboard on user interface split/separated into left and right sets of keyboard characters 118 and 120, ¶ 33 and figs 1-5. Embodiments include a split keyboard of circularly arranged keys that mimics a QWERTY layout, see ¶ 33 and fig. 2, and inputs from the keyboard sections are identified as inputs from a QWERTY keyboard layout, see ¶ 85. Herein, a broad sense, this is interpreted as a QWERTY layout, albeit not a traditional QWERTY layout. A circular arrangement of keys that mimics a QWERTY arrangement is considered a QWERTY layout because layout is defined by the logical mapping of letters to fingers (key mapping), not by the physical shape or geometry of the keyboard. As long as the Q, W, E, R, T, and Y keys remain in the same relative, sequential order, the underlying QWERTY "path dependency" is maintained, allowing muscle memory to transfer from a traditional linear keyboard to a radial one. As can be seen in fig. 2, the arrangement of keys are in the QWERTY separated into left and right hand portions),
generating first signals pertaining to selection of a character on the first keyboard portion in response to a user interacting with one or more control inputs in a first group of control inputs on a handheld controller; (left-hand directional inputs (first signals), on input device 106 such as a game controller [handheld controller], are associated with selections on a left-hand character set 118 on the display, ¶¶ 3, 15 and 17-18 and fig 1. Herein, it is broadly interpreted that the controller’s directional controls 108 and 110, ¶ 17, e.g., being joysticks, ¶ 15, are a group of input controls, particularly due to the way they function and are integrated with other components. While the stick itself is a single physical interface, it translates the user's input into multiple, distinct directional signals.)
and generating second signals pertaining to selection of a character on the second keyboard portion in response to the user interacting with one or more control inputs in a second group of control inputs on the handheld controller. (right-hand directional inputs (first signals), on input device 106 such as a game controller [handheld controller], are associated with selections on a right-hand character set 120 on the display, ¶¶ 3, 15 and 17-18 and fig 1. Herein, it is broadly interpreted that the controller’s directional controls 108 and 110, ¶ 17, e.g., being joysticks, ¶ 15, are a group of input controls, particularly due to the way they function and are integrated with other components. While the stick itself is a single physical interface, it translates the user's input into multiple, distinct directional signals.)
Claim 19:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Medina further teaches:
wherein different pairs of characters in each keyboard portion are different distances from one another. (in each keyboard portion, there different pairs of characters that are at different distances from one another, see figs. 1-5. E.g., in fig. 2, in the left portion of the keyboard, the pair of characters Q and W are right next to each other, while the pair of characters Q and E, or any other remaining character other than A, are farther away. Similar is true in the right portion of the keyboard, for example, where the pair O and P, and O and I, are next to each other while other character pairs are farther away )
Claim 22:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Medina further teaches:
wherein:
the first keyboard portion is located on a left side of the keyboard; (displaying keyboard on user interface split/separated into left and right sets of keyboard characters 118 and 120, ¶ 33 and figs 1-5.)
and the second keyboard portion is located on a right side of the keyboard. (displaying keyboard on user interface split/separated into left and right sets of keyboard characters 118 and 120, ¶ 33 and figs 1-5.)
Claim 23:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Medina further teaches:
wherein the first group of control inputs and the second group of control inputs are joysticks. (direction controls 108 and 110 includes a left and right joystick, ¶ 15 and fig. 1)
Claim 24:
The rejection of claim 23 is incorporated. Medina further teaches:
wherein:
the first group of control inputs is a left joystick; (direction controls 108 and 110 includes a left and right joystick, ¶ 15 and fig. 1)
and the second group of control inputs is a right joystick. (direction controls 108 and 110 includes a left and right joystick, ¶ 15 and fig. 1)
Claim 25:
The rejection of claim 24 is incorporated. Medina further teaches:
wherein:
the left joystick is located on a left side of the handheld controller; (directional control 108 is on the left side of the handheld controller, fig. 1)
and the right joystick is located on a right side of the handheld controller. (directional control 110 is on the right side of the handheld controller, fig. 1)
Claim 26:
The rejection of claim 23 is incorporated. Medina further teaches:
wherein the joysticks are analog joysticks. (direction controls 108 and 110 includes a left and right joystick, ¶ 15 and fig. 1. the directional user inputs, Abstract, from devices 108 and 110 are analog [analog joysticks], ¶ 47)
Claim 29:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Medina further teaches:
further comprising:
controlling, using the first signals, movement a first cursor within a boundary defined by the first keyboard portion; (the respective signals control movement corresponding line pointer character selection indicators 122, 124 [first and second cursor] which indicate selections of specific characters within a boundary defined by the first or second keyboard portion, figs. 1-5 and ¶¶ 16-18)
and controlling, using the second signals, movement of a second cursor within a boundary defined by the second keyboard portion. (the respective signals control movement corresponding line pointer character selection indicators 122, 124 [first and second cursor] which indicate selections of specific characters within a boundary defined by the first or second keyboard portion, figs. 1-5 and ¶¶ 16-18)
Claim 30:
The rejection of claim 29 is incorporated. Medina further teaches:
wherein controlling, using the first signals, movement a first cursor within a boundary defined by the first keyboard portion comprises:
controlling movement of a bounding box within the boundary. (a border [bounding box] is drawn around selected characters, ¶ 18 and figs. 1-5)
Claim 31:
The rejection of claim 30 is incorporated. Medina further teaches:
wherein the bounding box is a rectangular bounding box. (a rectangular border [rectangular bounding box] is drawn around selected characters, ¶ 18 and figs. 1-5)
Claim 32:
The rejection of claim 29 is incorporated. Medina further teaches:
further comprising:
controlling the movement of the first cursor and the movement of the second cursor simultaneously. (the selections of the characters may be simultaneous, ¶ 50, simultaneous movement of the cursors, or indicators 122, 124 [first and second cursor], figs. 1-5 and ¶¶ 16-18)
Claim 33:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Medina further teaches:
comprising:
selecting, based on the first signals, a character in the first keyboard portion; (the directional inputs cause characters in left and right keyboard portions to be selection, e.g., “l” and “S”, ¶¶ 17-18 and fig. 1)
and selecting, based on the second signals, a character in the second keyboard portion. (the directional inputs cause characters in left and right keyboard portions to be selection, e.g., “l” and “S”, ¶¶ 17-18 and fig. 1)
Independent Claims 36 and 37:
Claim(s) 36 and 37 is/are directed to a system and readable storage medium for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 1, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 20-21 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medina (US 20160034179 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kyprianou; Nikos et al. (hereinafter Kyprianou – US 20120206363 A1).
Claim 20:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Medina teaches all of the claimed process steps with the exception of:
wherein the QWERTY layout comprises rows and columns of selectable controls.
Medina also teaches, in the context of data entry via two-handed game controllers, that conventional virtual keyboards suffer from variable distances between characters, ¶ 1.
Kyprianou teaches:
wherein the QWERTY layout comprises rows and columns of selectable controls (a QWERTY keyboard layout displayed on touch display, ¶ 32 and fig. 2, that can also be displayed as being split in two equal left and right halves with four columns and 3 rows each, ¶¶ 36-37 and figs. 4 and 5).
Since Medina identifies that conventional QWERTY layouts—in the context of data entry via two-handed game controllers—suffer from variable distances that make typing slow and tedious, ¶ 1, it shows that users have nonetheless resorted to using traditional QWERTY or other variable-distance layouts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate a QWERTY layout with rows and columns of selectable controls into Medina’s method. Because there are a finite number of known, predictable layouts, a person of ordinary skill would have pursued such solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, understanding that these layouts—while perhaps slower than Medina's specific method—remain functional for data entry with two-handed controller.
Claim 21:
The rejection of claim 20 is incorporated. Kyprianou further teaches:
wherein the first keyboard portion and the second keyboard portion each comprise a same number of rows and a same number of columns. (a QWERTY keyboard layout displayed on touch display, ¶ 32 and fig. 2, that can also be displayed as being split in two equal left and right halves with four columns and three rows each [same number of rows and a same number of columns], ¶¶ 36-37 and figs. 4 and 5)
Claim 27:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Medina teaches all of the claimed process steps with the exception of:
wherein the QWERTY layout comprises a plurality of selectable controls that are arranged in a grid format.
Medina also teaches, in the context of data entry via two-handed game controllers, that conventional virtual keyboards suffer from variable distances between characters, ¶ 1.
Kyprianou teaches:
wherein the QWERTY layout comprises a plurality of selectable controls that are arranged in a grid format (a QWERTY keyboard grid layout displayed on touch display, ¶ 32 and fig. 2, that can also be displayed as being split in two equal left and right halves with four columns and 3 rows each, ¶¶ 36-37 and figs. 4 and 5).
Since Medina identifies that conventional QWERTY layouts—in the context of data entry via two-handed game controllers—suffer from variable distances that make typing slow and tedious, ¶ 1, it shows that users have nonetheless resorted to using traditional QWERTY or other variable-distance layouts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate a QWERTY layout that comprises a plurality of selectable controls that are arranged in a grid format into Medina’s method. Because there are a finite number of known, predictable layouts, a person of ordinary skill would have pursued such solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, understanding that these layouts—while perhaps slower than Medina's specific method—remain functional for data entry with two-handed controller.
Claim 28:
The rejection of claim 27 is incorporated. Medina further teaches:
wherein the selectable controls each represent a respective character. (each of the characters arranged on the keyboard are selectable, ¶ 13 and figs 1-5)
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medina (US 20160034179 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nonaka; Daisuke (hereinafter Nonaka – US 20120295707 A1).
Claim 34:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Medina does not appear to expressly teach, but Nonaka teaches:
wherein the keyboard comprises one or more character fields that visually indicate a function of the character field and a button on the handheld controller that causes selection of the function (FIG. 1A illustrates a both visual cue and a function (CI) on the screen to inform the user that pressing a square button on a controller will allow a character to perform the function, e.g., “open” an attache case, ¶ 59 and fig. 1A. Although this doesn’t directly mention that the screen is a keyboard with charter fields, it was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that keyboard icons also indicate functions, e.g., of entering/typing a character, and that any of the keyboard function could be correlated to the controller’s buttons, using the concept in Medina).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Medina to include wherein the keyboard comprises one or more character fields that visually indicate a function of the character field and a button on the handheld controller that causes selection of the function, as taught by Nonaka.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve usability provided by the method by providing guidance for operations with a controller, even when a has forgotten which buttons to press on the controller for performing the operations, Nonaka fig. 14A and ¶¶ 4 and 11.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medina (US 20160034179 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Badger; Eric Norman et al. (hereinafter Badger – US 20110202876 A1).
Claim 35:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Medina does not appear to expressly teach, but Badger teaches:
wherein the keyboard comprises a word suggestion field (a touchscreen containing a keyboard including an area for word prediction candidates, ¶ 69).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Medina to include wherein the keyboard comprises a word suggestion field, as taught by Badger.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the efficiency afforded by the method, e.g., allowing the user to improve typing speed and reduce errors, Badger ¶ 69.
Non-statutory 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.
Claim(s) 1, 19, 22-26, 29-33 and 36-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 4-6 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,416,977 in view of Medina (US 20160034179 A1).
For claims 1 and 25-26, 29 and 32-33:
Current Claims (emphasis added where necessary)
Patent US 12,416,977 B1 (emphasis added where necessary)
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
1. A method comprising:
providing, for display a keyboard that has a QWERTY layout, wherein the keyboard is split into a first keyboard portion and a second keyboard portion;
displaying a keyboard on a display, wherein the keyboard is split into: a first keyboard portion including an inner zone including one or more first letters of an alphabet and an outer zone including a first group of letters of the alphabet that are positioned to surround the one or more first letters included in the inner zone of the first keyboard portion with even spacing, the first group of letters being different than the one or more first letters; and a second keyboard portion including an inner zone including one or more second letters of the alphabet and an outer zone including a second group of letters of the alphabet that are positioned to surround the one or more second letters included in inner zone of the second keyboard portion with even spacing, the second group of letters being different than the one or more second letters;
generating first signals pertaining to selection of a character on the first keyboard portion in response to a user interacting with one or more control inputs in a first group of control inputs on a handheld controller; and
generating first signals pertaining to selection of a letter on the first keyboard portion in response to a user interacting with one or more control inputs in a first group of control inputs on a handheld controller; and
generating second signals pertaining to selection of a character on the second keyboard portion in response to the user interacting with one or more control inputs in a second group of control inputs on the handheld controller.
generating second signals pertaining to selection of a letter on the second keyboard portion in response to the user interacting with one or more control inputs in a second group of control inputs on the handheld controller.
29. The method of claim 1,
2. The method of claim 1, wherein:
further comprising: controlling, using the first signals, movement a first cursor within a boundary defined by the first keyboard portion;
the first signals cause a first cursor to move within the first keyboard portion and cause the letter in the first keyboard portion to be selected; and
and controlling, using the second signals, movement of a second cursor within a boundary defined by the second keyboard portion.
the second signals cause a second cursor to move within the second keyboard portion and cause the letter in the second keyboard portion to be selected.
33. The method of claim 1, wherein:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein:
selecting, based on the first signals, a character in the first keyboard portion; and
the first signals cause a first cursor to move within the first keyboard portion and cause the letter in the first keyboard portion to be selected; and
and selecting, based on the second signals, a character in the second keyboard portion.
the second signals cause a second cursor to move within the second keyboard portion and cause the letter in the second keyboard portion to be selected.
25. The method of claim 24, wherein:
4. The method of claim 1, wherein:
the left joystick is located on a left side of the handheld controller; and
the first group of control inputs is located on a left side of the handheld controller; and
the right joystick is located on a right side of the handheld controller.
the second group of control inputs is located on a right side of the handheld controller.
26. The method of claim 1,
5. The method of claim 1, wherein:
wherein the joysticks are analog joysticks.
the user interacting with one or more control inputs in the first group of control inputs on the handheld controller comprises the user interacting with a first analog control input; and
the user interacting with one or more control inputs in the second group of control inputs on the handheld controller comprises the user interacting with a second analog control input.
32. The method of claim 1, further comprising: controlling the movement of the first cursor and the movement of the second cursor simultaneously.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more control inputs in the first group of control inputs and the one or more control inputs in the second group of control inputs are respectively configured to allow a first cursor on the first keyboard portion and a second cursor on the second keyboard portion to be moved substantially simultaneously.
As reflected above, instant claims 1 and 25-26, 29 and 32-33 are very similar to the patent claims. A trivial difference is that the current claims refer to a “character” and the patent claims refer to a “letter”. A not so trivial difference is that the instant claim also includes that a layout of the characters is a QWERTY layout. However, this is taught be by Medina, as reflected in the 102 rejection above.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to limit concept of the patent modify the patent to achieve a known and narrower layout, as taught by Medina, and as mapped above in the 102 rejection section.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to narrow the scope of the Patent with an example of a known layout.
Similar rational applies to claims 19, 22-24, 30-31 and 36-37.
Claim(s) 20-21, 27-28 and 34-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 4-6 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,416,977 in view of Medina (US 20160034179 A1), as explained above for claim 1, and further in view of one or more of Kyprianou (US 20120206363 A1), Nonaka (US 20120295707 A1).and Badger (US 20110202876 A1), for reasons similar to those explained in the 103 rejections above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 102 arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections presented above.
As explained in the 102 rejection above, Medina’s embodiments include a split keyboard of circularly arranged keys that mimics a QWERTY layout, see ¶ 33 and fig. 2, and the inputs from the keyboard sections are identified as inputs from a QWERTY keyboard layout, see ¶ 85. Herein, a broad sense, this is interpreted as a QWERTY layout, albeit not a traditional QWERTY layout. A circular arrangement of keys that mimics a QWERTY arrangement is considered a QWERTY layout because layout is defined by the logical mapping of letters to fingers (key mapping), not by the physical shape or geometry of the keyboard. As long as the Q, W, E, R, T, and Y keys remain in the same relative, sequential order, the underlying QWERTY "path dependency" is maintained, allowing muscle memory to transfer from a traditional linear keyboard to a radial one. As can be seen in fig. 2, the arrangement of keys are in the QWERTY separated into left and right hand portions.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Peck; Charles C. (hereinafter Peck – US 6630924 B1), is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing a gesture sensing split keyboard made up of two sections of keys, one for each hand of an operator, Peck Claim 3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171