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 .
Response to Amendment
This final office action is in response to the amendment filed on 4/8/2026. Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined below.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, Claim 9 recites specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) as follows:
monitoring a first behavior of a first avatar in a first environment of a plurality of environments;
based on the first behavior of the first avatar in the first environment, generating a first environment-specific behavioral profile corresponding to the first environment for the particular user;
monitoring a second behavior of a second avatar in a second environment of the plurality of environments;
based on the second behavior of the second avatar in the second environment, generating a second environment-specific behavioral profile corresponding to the second environment for the particular user, wherein the second environment-specific behavioral profile for the particular user is different than the first environment-specific behavioral profile for the particular user;
selecting a first content item for displaying to the particular user;
based on at least one of the first environment-specific behavioral profile and the second environment-specific behavioral profile, determining that the particular user would have a greater level of engagement in relation to the first content item if the first content item is displayed within the first environment than if the first content item is displayed within the second environment;
responsive to determining that the particular user would have a greater level of engagement in relation to the first content item if the first content item is displayed within the first environment than if the first content item is displayed within the second environment:
selecting the first environment as a target environment for display of the first content item.
As noted above, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Specifically, these limitations fall within the group Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e., commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). That is, the limitations recited above describe the process of monitoring user behavior in different environments, generating user profile(s) based on the monitored user behaviors in different environments, and displaying a content item to the user (i.e., advertising – see spec [0052]) in a first environment based determining a user would have a greater level of engagement in the first environment. This is an advertising activity that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly claim 9 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of:
the first and second environments are metaverse environments.
the first avatar being controlled by a particular user and the second avatar being controlled by the same particular user;
causing display of the first content item within the first metaverse environment while the first avatar is within the first metaverse environment.
The additional limitations when viewed individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because each of the additional elements are recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it); or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Specifically, specifying that the first and second environments are metaverse environments and that the first avatar being controlled by a particular user and the second avatar being controlled by the same particular user are recited at a high level of generality and merely apply the abstract idea in the context or the metaverse or merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., a generic metaverse where users control avatars).
With respect to causing display of the first content item within the first metaverse environment while the first avatar is within the first metaverse environment, the limitation is recited at a high level of generality and merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., the metaverse) to display selected advertisements while the user is present in that environment. There is no recited technological improvement to the underlying metaverse technology with respect to monitoring the users in the metaverse, controlling the users in the metaverse, or delivering content to the users in the metaverse.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it); generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment; or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception in a particular technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). Therefore, independent non-transitory computer readable media claim 1 and independent system claim 17 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent method claim 9. The additional limitations in claim 1 (i.e., a non-transitory computer readable medium) and the additional limitations in independent claim 17 (i.e., a device including a hardware processor) add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. At best, the components in independent claims 1 and 17 merely provide an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of independent claim 1, 9, and 17 without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more. Specifically, the additional limitations in claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 merely further limit the abstract idea or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments, see pages 10-18, filed 4/8/2026 with respect to the rejections of claims
Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues:
At page 3, the Office Action asserts that the pending claims are not patent-eligible because they are directed to organizing human activity More specifically, the Office Action asserts that the claim is directed to advertising. (Id. at pages 4-5.). Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Thus, the above examples from the MPEP are limited to commercial, legal, or organizational activities among humans. Differently from the MPEP' s examples, claim 1 does not involve managing or controlling any human activities. Instead, claim 1 is directed to computer operations that monitor the behavior of different avatars of a user in different metaverse environments and present content in a particular metaverse based on user behavior across the different metaverse environments.
The rejection notes the Applicant's Specification describes advertising. (Office Action at p. 4, citing Specification I 0052.) However, "If a claim is based on or involves an abstract idea, but does not recite it, then the claim is not directed to an abstract idea." MPEP § 2106.04(a)(l)(i). Here, claim 1 does not recite any advertising. Rather claim 1 recites, inter alia, "based on at least one of the first environment-specific behavioral profile and the second environment-specific behavioral profile, selecting the first metaverse environment for display of a first content item while the first avatar is within the first metaverse environment" (emphasis added). Applicant's Specification describes presenting content relevant to users based on characteristics of environments within metaverses. (Specification at <]I 0003.). Further, the Specification describes content as including, "digital material, such as text, images, graphics, videos, animations, and/or audio." (Id. at <]I 0036.) For example, paragraph 65 states, "The target content item can be, for example, a short film, an educational video, or a promotional display to be placed in a compatible environment of the metaverse." Thus, at most, claim 1 may involve advertising content. Accordingly, pursuant to MPEP § 2106.04(a)(l)(i), the subject matter of claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea (remarks pages 11-12).
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claim does not recite a method or organizing human activities. The independent claims recite generating a behavioral profile for a user in a first and second metaverse environment, selecting a content item to display to the user, determining that the user would have a greater level of engagement if the content item is displayed in the first metaverse environment rather than the second metaverse environment, and in response to that determination causing the content item to be displayed in the first metaverse environment. While Examiner acknowledges that the claims themselves do not explicitly recite the term “advertising”, the overwhelming amount of discussion and examples of contextually targeted content in Applicant’s specification refer to promotional / brand / advertising material.
Specifically, Examiner has thoroughly reviewed Applicant’s specification and notes that while the specification recites in a single paragraph that “[t]he target content item can be, for example, a short film, an educational video, or a promotional display” the remainder of the specification repeatedly discusses the content as promotional content / advertisements. Specifically, paragraph [0006] recites “[b]y gathering and analyzing the information, retailers can more effectively target the promotional content in metaverses.” And, paragraph [0036] (cited by Applicant) concludes by reciting “The content items can be, for example, promotional content of brands, manufacturers, retailers, suppliers, and the like.” Further, paragraph [0072] recites “[t]he system presents the selected content item in the environment while the avatar is within the environment (Operation 212). Presenting the advertisement to the target user can comprise transmitting the advertisement to the metaverse application to render the advertisement using an object configured to display content, such as a virtual billboard or display screen.” Paragraph [0094] recites “content display 520A can be a video display capable of presenting different types of content, which can be promotional content items.” And, Paragraph [0097] “the system can determine that promotional video with a duration of over 30 seconds is most suitable for the user’s demographic in the theme of coffee shop environment. In contrast, based on the environment-specific user profile of the first user, the system may determine that a promotional video for a first-person shooter video game is unsuitable for displaying to the avatar 502A while the second avatar is engaged in the environment.” Paragraph [0098] “Based on the avatar behavior in the environment and lack of focus on the display the system can select the environment to display to the avatar a promotional image, such as still image of a brand logo, that is instantly recognizable without the user giving the content substantial attention.” Paragraph [0099] “the system can select the environment to display content item suitable for the environment-specific user profile for the second user in environment. For example, the system can select and present short promotional clips (e.g., GIFs) of brands relevant to arcade games, racing, automobiles, competitive sports, and the like.” Paragraph [0100] recites “the system 500 can select a promotional image, such as still image of a brand logo.”
Therefore, Examiner takes the position that the claims, when read in view of the specification, recite a “method of contextually targeting users in metaverse environments” (see application title) where the envisioned content is primarily advertising content. The fact that that other content may also be delivered does not change the analysis.
Moreover, Examiner points Applicant to Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369-71 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Examiner notes that similar to the present claims, the claims in the 382 patent held to be ineligible in Intellectual Ventures did not explicitly recite advertising. Rather the independent claim recited “a display depicting portions of the web site visited by the user as a function of the user's personal characteristics” and “a display depicting portions of the web site visited by the user as a function of the web site navigation data.” Nevertheless, the court held that:
Tailoring information based on the time of day of viewing is also an abstract, overly broad concept long-practiced in our society. There can be no doubt that television commercials for decades tailored advertisements based on the time of day during which the advertisement was viewed. For example, a television channel might choose to present a commercial for children's toys during early morning cartoon programs but beer during an evening sporting event. An advertisement taking into account the time of day and tailoring the information presented to the user based on that information is another "fundamental... practice long prevalent in our system...." Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2356. Id at 1370.
Similar to Intellectual Ventures, the present claims are tailoring information (i.e. the content) to the particular user which Examiner finds recite an abstract idea under step 2A, prong 1. Therefore Examiner respectfully finds Applicant’s argument unpersuasive.
Second, Applicant argues:
Thus, the Specification discloses a particular technical solution implemented by computing systems including: (i) monitoring avatar behavior within each metaverse environment, (ii) generating environment-specific behavioral profiles based on the monitored behavior, and (iii) using those environment-specific profiles to control selection of environments for content presentation (remarks page 14).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, with respect to monitoring avatar behavior within each metaverse environment, Examiner notes that the claim recites this at a high level of generality. There is no claimed recitation of the specific type of behavior monitored or how the behavior is monitored within the metaverse. Paragraph [0035] of Applicant’s specification recites that the metaverse system can log a wide variety of behaviors which include “content consumption behaviors, such as counts of viewing and/or interacting with content objects. The behavior information can consumer behaviors, such as quantity of interactions with vendors, click through on advertisements, quantity and types of purchases.” Examiner notes that the recited behaviors are not specific to the metaverse but are broader behaviors that can be measured on any website or even at a brick-and-mortar store. At this high level of generality, simply monitoring behavior such as content impressions or quantity of purchases does not recite a technical solution.
Similarly, with respect to generating environment-specific behavioral profiles based on the monitored behavior, this limitation merely recites part of the abstract idea of monitoring user behavior, generating a user profile based on the behavior, and delivering relevant content/ads. There is no claimed technical detail as to how the profile is generated beyond that the behavior data is used to generate the profile. According there is no recited technical solution.
Finally, with respect to using those environment-specific profiles to control selection of environments for content presentation, this limitation is again recited at a high level of generality. Simply selecting the environment to display the ad is no different than selecting a website to display the ad, or even selecting a physical location in the real world to display the ad. There is no technical detail specific to a metaverse environment. At most selecting the metaverse environment to display the advertisement merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., the metaverse).
Third, Applicant argues:
The claimed invention improves the functioning of computing systems in several respects. First, the claimed invention improves computational accuracy of content selection by generating separate profiles tied to respective metaverse environments, the system preserves context dependent behavioral information for particular environments. This allows the computing system to select content based on behavior that is relevant to the current context of the avatar, rather than relying on aggregated or conflicting behavioral data. Second, the claimed invention improves computational efficiency by reducing redundant processing of behavioral data. That is, the claimed environment-specific behavioral profiles are generated based on monitored behavior and maintained as structured data objects, the system can perform content-selection operations without recomputing behavioral characteristics from raw interaction data. This reduces processing latency and improves throughput in systems supporting multiple concurrent avatars across multiple environments. Third, the claimed invention improves computing systems for metaverse environments by allowing context-aware control of content rendering. By selecting a metaverse environment for display of a content item based on the environment-specific behavioral profiles, the system avoids rendering or transmitting content to environments where such content is not relevant. This reduces unnecessary resource utilization, including rendering cycles, network transmission, and client-side processing. Fourth, the claimed approach improves system scalability and adaptability by enabling incremental updates to environment-specific behavioral profiles. based on ongoing monitoring of avatar behavior. This allows the system to dynamically adjust content-selection decisions in real time without requiring global recomputation of user models. Accordingly, claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application that improves the functioning of a computer system and the technical field of metaverse-based content delivery. Therefore, claim 1 is not directed to a judicial exception under Prong 2 of Step 2A (remarks pages 15-16)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Examiner notes that generating separate profiles for different environments describes the abstract idea. To the extent there is an improvement it is an improvement to the abstract idea (i.e., more relevant targeting), not an improvement to computational accuracy. Second, Examiner disagrees “that the claimed invention improves computational efficiency by reducing redundant processing of behavioral data. That is, the claimed environment-specific behavioral profiles are generated based on monitored behavior and maintained as structured data objects, the system can perform content-selection operations without recomputing behavioral characteristics from raw interaction data. This reduces processing latency and improves throughput in systems supporting multiple concurrent avatars across multiple environments.” The claims merely recite generating behavioral profiles based on respective behavior at a high level of generality. There are no technical details as how raw data is transformed into a specific structured data object and the specification [33] merely recites “[t]he user database 132 is one or more data structures including information associating users of the metaverse system 102 with attributes” without reciting a specific data structure. Moreover, neither the claims nor specification recite reducing latency or improving throughput. At the level of generality claimed, merely generating generic profiles based on generic behavior data and selecting content based on the profile describes the abstract idea and does not amount to an improvement to computational efficiency. Third, Examiner disagrees that “the claimed invention improves computing systems for metaverse environments by allowing context-aware control of content rendering. By selecting a metaverse environment for display of a content item based on the environment-specific behavioral profiles, the system avoids rendering or transmitting content to environments where such content is not relevant. This reduces unnecessary resource utilization, including rendering cycles, network transmission, and client-side processing.” Rendering relevant content describes the recited abstract idea, not a technical improvement. Fourth, Examiner respectfully disagrees that “the claimed approach improves system scalability and adaptability by enabling incremental updates to environment-specific behavioral profiles based on ongoing monitoring of avatar behavior. This allows the system to dynamically adjust content-selection decisions in real time without requiring global recomputation of user models.” The claims merely recite generating first and second profiles based on the monitored behavior data. There is no recitation updating the profile based on ongoing monitoring. Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Fourth, Applicant argues that:
The present claims are analogous to those in Finjan. That is, the claimed environment-specific behavioral profiles constitute a data structure that records behavior in relation to environment context to allow a computing system to distinguish between behavior exhibited in different metaverse environments and to apply the appropriate profile when making contentselection decisions. Moreover, the environment-specific behavioral profiles enable a computing system to select a metaverse environment for display of a content item based on at least one of the environment-specific behavioral profiles while the avatar is within that environment. Thus, as in Finjan, claim 1 recites particular data behavioral profiles that enable more flexible and accurate content placement, as well as greater customization for particular users. Therefore, claim 1 also integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2 of Step 2A consistent with MPEP 2106.04(d)(III) (remarks page 16).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Finjan, the security profile improved computer functionality by allowing the computer to filter both hostile and potentially hostile operations (as opposed to only confirmed hostile operations). In contrast, the behavioral profiles in the present claims merely allow content to be better tailored to the user. At most this is an improvement to the underlying abstract idea, not an improvement to the functioning of a computer than integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Fifth, Applicant argues:
A claim that recites a solution necessarily rooted in computer technology to address a problem arising in the realm of computer technology amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. (DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257.) In this case, claim 1 is necessarily rooted in computer technology because it operates on entities and interactions that do not exist outside of a computer-implemented environment. In particular, claim 1 recites monitoring behavior of an avatar within a metaverse environment, generating environment-specific behavioral profiles based on that behavior, and dynamically selecting content for display within that environment. An "avatar" in a "metaverse environment" is a computer-generated entity whose state, movement, and interactions are instantiated, tracked, and updated solely through software processes executing on computer processors. Additionally, monitoring an avatar's behavior involves capturing event and interaction data within a simulated environment. The claimed monitoring cannot be performed through human observation or real-world monitoring techniques. Similarly, generating environment-specific behavioral profiles involves aggregating and correlating interaction data across different virtual environments. The selection and display of content within the metaverse further involves graphic rendering to cause the content item to be displayed to the avatar in real time within the metaverse environment (remarks page 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the claims recite the abstract idea of monitoring user behavior in different environments, generating user profiles based on the monitored user behaviors in different environments, and displaying a content item to the user (i.e., advertising – see spec [0052]) in a first environment based determining a user would have a greater level of engagement in the first environment. There is no claimed recitation of the specific type of behavior monitored or how the behavior is monitored within the metaverse. Paragraph [0035] of Applicant’s specification recites that the metaverse system can log a wide variety of behaviors which include “content consumption behaviors, such as counts of viewing and/or interacting with content objects. The behavior information can consumer behaviors, such as quantity of interactions with vendors, click through on advertisements, quantity and types of purchases.” At this level of generality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the monitored behavior includes generic behavior that could take place in any environment (e.g., counting purchases made on a generic website or in a brick-and-mortar store). Tying the abstract idea to avatars in different metaverses at this high level of generality merely generally links the abstract to a particular technological environment (i.e. metaverse environments) as opposed to reciting a solution necessarily rooted in computer technology.
Finally, Applicant argues that:
The claimed invention is different than, for example, monitoring customer activity in a physical retail mall. In a mall, a human observer could watch a customer move between stores and make informal judgments about preferences without any technological implementation. By contrast, the claimed operations cannot be performed in the human mind or in a non-computer context because the metaverse environments, avatars, behaviors, and content only exist in a computing system.
While it might be argued that "monitoring behavior" and "selecting content" are computer implementations of real-world marketing practices. However, that argument improperly abstracts away the claimed technological context. Claim 1 is not directed to the general concept of observing a user and selecting content. Rather, claim 1 recites a specific implementation that depends on capturing, processing, and acting upon behavior within distinct metaverse environments using computer-generated avatars and environment-specific state data. Accordingly, the claims are directed to a technological solution solely arising in the context of computer-generated metaverse systems.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, examiner notes that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection identifies the abstract idea as a method of organizing human activity, not a mental process that can be performed in the human mind. Additionally, Examiner respectfully notes that the monitored behavior is recited at a very high level of generality. As noted, paragraph [0035] of Applicant’s specification recites that the metaverse system can log a wide variety of behaviors which include “content consumption behaviors, such as counts of viewing and/or interacting with content objects. The behavior information can consumer behaviors, such as quantity of interactions with vendors, click through on advertisements, quantity and types of purchases.” At this level of generality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the monitored behavior includes generic behavior that could take place in any environment (e.g., counting purchases made on a generic website or in a brick-and-mortar store). Further the idea of selecting content based on behavior in different environment is not specific to metaverse environments. At most monitoring the user behavior and selecting the metaverse environment to display the advertisement based on the monitored behavior merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., the metaverse). The claims do not recite a technological solution that is specific to implementing the abstract idea in the metaverse.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant's arguments, see pages 18-21 filed 4/8/2026 with respect to the rejections of claims
Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, Examiner agrees that the art of record does not teach at least the limitation “determining that the particular user would have a greater level of engagement in relation to the first content item if the first content item is displayed within the first metaverse environment than if the first content item is displayed within the second metaverse environment.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication Number 8979652 (“Ciszewski”) discloses analyzing avatar movement interactions in a virtual environment
US Patent Application Publication Number 20250061472 (“Kabra”) discloses predicting levels of user attention and determining user attention scores for content in virtual reality
US Patent Application Publication Number 20120011002 (“Crowe”) discloses monitoring interactions of multiple avatars in a virtual environment to generate user profiles and selecting advertisements to present in the virtual environment based on the generated profiles
US Patent Application Publication Number 20250245025 (“Gendreau”) discloses a user moving from one metaverse to another and generating profiles for each virtual environment
US Patent Application Publication Number 20180075510 (“Greenberger”) discloses ranking and selecting content to display in a virtual environment based on information stored in a user profile.
However, the prior art fails to teach each and every limitation as claimed, and would involve hindsight reasoning to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the claims are considered allowable over the prior art.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II whose telephone number is (571)272-6904. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571) 270-7537. 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.
/ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights