DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: “an HMD” should be amended to say “a head-mounted display (HMD)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by “adjusting a respective vision correction filter to the respective visual pattern based on the user response”. It is unclear what the correction filter is doing to the respective visual pattern. For purposes of examination the claim is being interpreted as “adjusting a respective vision correction filter based on the user response to the respective visual pattern”. The same issue is present in claims 15 and 18.
The term “substantially” in claims 7 and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination the claim is being interpreted as an even number of regions.
Claim 12 recites “a user input captured by a subset of one or more first sensors of the electronic device, and the one or more first sensors include a forward facing camera for detecting a hand gesture, a microphone for collecting an audio response, and a controller for receiving a user physical force”. The claim states that there can be one sensor, the use of the word “and” implies that there are at least two sensors. It is recommended the claim be amended to say “or a controller for receiving a user physical force”. The same issue is present in claim 13 with the phrase “and a set of one or more brain activity electrodes”.
Claims not explicitly rejected above are rejected because they depend from claims rejected above as indefinite.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
STEP 1
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites a series of steps or acts, including combining respective vision correction filters corresponding to the plurality of regions to determine a prescription of an eyewear for a user associated with the electronic device. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The step of combining respective vision correction filters corresponding to the plurality of regions to determine a prescription of an eyewear for a user associated with the electronic device sets forth a judicial exception. This step describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea. A human being is capable of applying filters to a user’s vision and determine a prescription form those filters.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim also recites an abstract idea in the form of a mental process in the step of “adjusting a respective vision correction filter to the respective visual pattern based on the user response”. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. The determined prescription does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the determined prescription, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
STEP 2B
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional steps of executing a visual assessment application, including displaying a user interface to create a 3D virtual environment; partitioning a field of view displayed on the user interface into a plurality of regions; for each of the plurality of regions in the field of view, successively: rendering a respective visual pattern in the respective region; and obtaining a user response to the respective visual pattern. Obtaining a user response to visual data is well-understood, routine and conventional activity for those in the field of medical diagnostics. Further, displaying and partitioning steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the obtaining and comparing steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
The same rationale applies to claims 15 and 18.
Regarding claim 18, the device recited in the claim is a generic device comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea. The recited Head mounted display is a virtual reality headset configured to perform pre-solutional data gathering activity and pattern displaying, and the processors and memory are configured to perform the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they generally recite method steps pertaining to mental processes and data gathering. Claims 2-4, 8, 11, and 14 are abstract ideas in the form of mental processes. Claims 5-7, 9-10, and 12-13, are merely additional details of the pre solutional data gathering step. The adjusting steps recited in the independent claims maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
The examiner recommends amending the claims to recite the head-mounted display in a non-generic way.
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) 1-9,12-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samec (US 20170000329 A1) in view of Hykin (Intravitreal ranibizumab versus aflibercept versus bevacizumab for macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion: the LEAVO non-inferiority three-arm RCT).
In regards to claim 1 Samec teaches a method for implementing a vision test, comprising:
at an electronic device including one or more processors, memory storing instructions, and a head-mounted display (HMD) ([0204] a virtual reality head-mounted ophthalmic system):
executing a visual assessment application, including displaying a user interface to create a 3D virtual environment [0204] a virtual reality inherently displays 3D images);
partitioning a field of view displayed on the user interface into a plurality of regions;
for each of the plurality of regions in the field of view: rendering a respective visual pattern in the respective region ([1684] a virtual eye test chart has regions in the form of rows of increasing difficulty);
obtaining a user response to the respective visual pattern ([1666] the ophthalmic system may automatically incrementally increase or decrease a prescription based on the user input into the feedback mechanism);
and adjusting a respective vision correction filter to the respective visual pattern based on the user response ([1684] The wearable augmented (or virtual) reality device 1400 can be configured to administer or provide an eye exam by automatically providing incremental changes in an optical prescription by varying the focus of the image);
and combining respective vision correction filters corresponding to the plurality of regions to determine a prescription of an eyewear for a user associated with the electronic device ([1684] “incremental changes in an optical prescription by varying the focus of the image” Optical prescription at the end of the test is the prescription of an eyewear for a user”).
Samec does not teach the row being displayed successively.
Hykin teaches successively showing the user rows of an eye chart after adjusting the prescription (Appendix 4, Refraction, “Minus was added only if the subject read at least one more letter and the plus was rechecked. The cylinder axis was rechecked using a round letter on a row one or two lines above the lowest row the participant could read. The cylinder power was rechecked using a round letter on the lowest row the subject could read. The sphere was refined as before, offering plus, minus, then plus”). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Samec so that the regions are shown successively in order to recheck the prescription like the method of Hykin. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of improving the accuracy of the prescription by checking that the refractions need to be adjusted.
In regards to claim 2 Modified Samec teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the prescription of the eyewear includes a filter map associating the plurality of regions with the respective vision correction filters, each region associated with one or more filter settings of the respective vision correction filter ([1529] device can detect if user needs multi-focal corrective lenses using gaze orientation associates filter with sections further away and sections closer to user [1516] mapping table, user with vision issues would inherently need prescription to become stronger as the letters get smaller until the correct sharpness of vision is obtained).
In regards to claim 3 Modified Samec teaches the method of Claim 2, further comprising: identifying a selection of an eyewear lens; based on the selection of the eyewear lens, converting the filter map to a lens map, the lens map associating a plurality of lens portions of the eyewear lens with a plurality of correction powers ([1529] device can determine progressive lens prescriptions, Lens map is inherently determined for these lenses).
In regards to claim 4 Modified Samec teaches the method of Claim 3, converting the filter map to the lens map further comprising, for each of the plurality of regions: identifying a respective lens portion of the eyewear lens; determining a respective correction power for the respective lens portion based on the respective filter settings of the respective vision correction filter corresponding to the respective region ([1529] device can determine progressive lens prescriptions, Lens map is inherently determined for these lenses).
In regards to claim 5 Modified Samec teaches the method of Claim 3, wherein the eyewear lens are not evenly divided to provide the plurality of lens portions ([1529] progressive lenses inherently do not have evenly divided lens portions).
In regards to claim 6 Modified Samec teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of regions include a first number of regions ([1684] a virtual eye test chart has regions in the form of rows of increasing difficulty). Modified Samec does not explicitly teach more than 9 regions. It is noted that Applicant has not disclosed in the specification that the number of regions provides an advantage or unexpected result. As such, it would have been obvious, through routine experimentation, to determine an amount of rows of the eye test chart of Modified Samec. Furthermore, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claim 7 Modified Samec teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the field of view is divided substantially evenly to form the plurality of regions ([1684] a virtual eye test chart has regions in the form of rows of increasing difficulty, Fig.14 Eye chart has 8 rows).
In regards to claim 8 Modified Samec teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of regions correspond to a plurality of visual patterns jointly form an image frame (([1684] rows form image of an eye test chart), and the plurality of visual patterns are rendered on the user interface concurrently (Fig.14 full eye chart is shown to user), and wherein the respective vision correction filters corresponding to the plurality of regions are adjusted jointly to determine the prescription of the eyewear ([1684] “The wearable augmented (or virtual) reality device 1400 can be configured to administer or provide an eye exam by automatically providing incremental changes in an optical prescription by varying the focus of the image”, in an eye exam the user looks at one row at a time and the prescription is adjusted).
In regards to claim 9 Modified Samec teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein respective visual patterns of the plurality of regions are rendered successively to determine a respective subset of the prescription for each respective region (([1684] “incremental changes in an optical prescription by varying the focus of the image”, prescription is determined as user takes the eye test, Inherently each row would need a stronger prescription to see it until the correct prescription is determined)
In regards to claim 12 Modified Samec teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the user response include a user input captured by a subset of one or more first sensors of the electronic device, and the one or more first sensors include a forward facing camera for detecting a hand gesture, a microphone for collecting an audio response, or a controller for receiving a user physical force ([1586] The user interface features can be presented on a device with a touch screen wherein interaction with the touch screen provides input to the wearable augmented reality device. Voice recognition and/or virtual touch screen technology can also be employed. The user interface features can include capacitive features sensitive to touch, keyboards, buttons, microphones, photodetectors, or a variety of software-implemented features provided by a graphical user interface. In some embodiments, the user interface features include gesture detection components to allow a wearer to provide user input through gestures. [1690] In some implementations, to conduct an eye exam, the user/wearer may be presented with a variety of images of varying sizes, and the user/wearer may provide input as to the clarity of the image through a user interface 1404 of the ophthalmic system.).
In regards to claim 13 Modified Samec teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the user response includes a spontaneous user response monitored by a subset of one or more second sensors of the electronic device, and the one or more second sensors include one or more of: an eye tracking camera, a heart rate sensor, a body temperature sensor, a blood oxygen level, a Galvanic skin response sensor, a hand gesture camera, a body gesture camera, a microphone, a motion sensor, or a set of one or more brain activity electrodes ([1470] The health system may include many sensors (e.g., accelerometers, gyroscopes, temperature sensors, pressure sensors, light sensors, non-invasive blood glucose sensors, ETCO2, EEG, and/or other physiological sensors, etc.) to monitor one or more physiological responses of the user, [1657] For example, the display device (62) may include gyroscopic sensors configured to determine head position or head movement of the user (e.g., straight, tilted down, looking up, etc.). Movement of the user's head may be indicative of a user searching for a better viewing angle of the image).
In regards to claim 15 Samec teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, storing one or more programs for execution by one or more processors of an electronic device having an HMD, the one or more programs including instructions for ([0189] “a virtual reality head-mounted ophthalmic system comprising a wearable virtual reality display”, [1431] processor and memory):
executing a visual assessment application, including displaying a user interface to create a 3D virtual environment [0204] a virtual reality inherently displays 3D images);
partitioning a field of view displayed on the user interface into a plurality of regions;
for each of the plurality of regions in the field of view: rendering a respective visual pattern in the respective region ([1684] a virtual eye test chart has regions in the form of rows of increasing difficulty);
obtaining a user response to the respective visual pattern ([1666] the ophthalmic system may automatically incrementally increase or decrease a prescription based on the user input into the feedback mechanism);
and adjusting a respective vision correction filter to the respective visual pattern based on the user response ([1684] The wearable augmented (or virtual) reality device 1400 can be configured to administer or provide an eye exam by automatically providing incremental changes in an optical prescription by varying the focus of the image);
and combining respective vision correction filters corresponding to the plurality of regions to determine a prescription of an eyewear for a user associated with the electronic device ([1684] “incremental changes in an optical prescription by varying the focus of the image” Optical prescription at the end of the test is the prescription of an eyewear for a user”).
Samec does not teach the row being displayed successively. Hykin teaches successively showing the user rows of an eye chart after adjusting the prescription (Appendix 4, Refraction, “Minus was added only if the subject read at least one more letter and the plus was rechecked. The cylinder axis was rechecked using a round letter on a row one or two lines above the lowest row the participant could read. The cylinder power was rechecked using a round letter on the lowest row the subject could read. The sphere was refined as before, offering plus, minus, then plus”). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Samec so that the regions are shown successively in order to recheck the prescription like the method of Hykin. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of improving the accuracy of the prescription by checking that the refractions need to be adjusted.
In regards to claim 16 Modified Samec teaches the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of Claim 15, wherein the field of view is divided substantially evenly to form the plurality of regions ([1684] a virtual eye test chart has regions in the form of rows of increasing difficulty, Fig.14 Eye chart has 8 rows)..
In regards to claim 17 Modified Samec teaches the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of Claim 15, wherein the plurality of regions correspond to a plurality of visual patterns jointly form an image frame (([1684] rows form image of an eye test chart), and the plurality of visual patterns are rendered on the user interface concurrently (Fig.14 full eye chart is shown to user), and wherein the respective vision correction filters corresponding to the plurality of regions are adjusted jointly to determine the prescription of the eyewear ([1684] “The wearable augmented (or virtual) reality device 1400 can be configured to administer or provide an eye exam by automatically providing incremental changes in an optical prescription by varying the focus of the image”, in an eye exam the user looks at one row at a time and the prescription is adjusted
In regards to claim 18 Samec teaches an electronic device, comprising: an HMD; one or more processors; and memory for storing one or more programs for execution by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for ([0189] “a virtual reality head-mounted ophthalmic system comprising a wearable virtual reality display”, [1431] processor and memory):
executing a visual assessment application, including displaying a user interface to create a 3D virtual environment [0204] a virtual reality inherently displays 3D images);
partitioning a field of view displayed on the user interface into a plurality of regions;
for each of the plurality of regions in the field of view: rendering a respective visual pattern in the respective region ([1684] a virtual eye test chart has regions in the form of rows of increasing difficulty);
obtaining a user response to the respective visual pattern ([1666] the ophthalmic system may automatically incrementally increase or decrease a prescription based on the user input into the feedback mechanism);
and adjusting a respective vision correction filter to the respective visual pattern based on the user response ([1684] The wearable augmented (or virtual) reality device 1400 can be configured to administer or provide an eye exam by automatically providing incremental changes in an optical prescription by varying the focus of the image);
and combining respective vision correction filters corresponding to the plurality of regions to determine a prescription of an eyewear for a user associated with the electronic device ([1684] “incremental changes in an optical prescription by varying the focus of the image” Optical prescription at the end of the test is the prescription of an eyewear for a user”).
Samec does not teach the row being displayed successively. Hykin teaches successively showing the user rows of an eye chart after adjusting the prescription (Appendix 4, Refraction, “Minus was added only if the subject read at least one more letter and the plus was rechecked. The cylinder axis was rechecked using a round letter on a row one or two lines above the lowest row the participant could read. The cylinder power was rechecked using a round letter on the lowest row the subject could read. The sphere was refined as before, offering plus, minus, then plus”). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Samec so that the regions are shown successively in order to recheck the prescription like the method of Hykin. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of improving the accuracy of the prescription by checking that the refractions need to be adjusted.
In regards to claim 19 Modified Samec teaches the electronic device of Claim 18, wherein the prescription of the eyewear includes a filter map associating the plurality of regions with the respective vision correction filters, each region associated with one or more filter settings of the respective vision correction filter ([1529] device can detect if user needs multi-focal corrective lenses using gaze orientation associates filter with sections further away and sections closer to user [1516] mapping table, user with vision issues would inherently need prescription to become stronger as the letters get smaller until the correct sharpness of vision is obtained).
In regards to claim 20 Modified Samec teaches the electronic device of Claim 19, the one or more programs further comprising instructions for: identifying a selection of an eyewear lens; based on the selection of the eyewear lens, converting the filter map to a lens map, the lens map associating a plurality of lens portions of the eyewear lens with a plurality of correction powers ([1529] device can determine progressive lens prescriptions, Lens map is inherently determined for these lenses).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samec (US 20170000329 A1) in view of Hykin (Intravitreal ranibizumab versus aflibercept versus bevacizumab for macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion: the LEAVO non-inferiority three-arm RCT) as applied to claim 9, further in view of Alster (US 20070121070 A1).
In regards to claim 10 Modified Samec teaches the method of Claim 9. Modified Samec fails to teach the respective visual patterns are rendered successively in the plurality of regions according to a random order. Alster teaches displaying patterns in a random order to prevent the user from memorizing the letters of the test ([0102] In some embodiments of the invention, the patterns are displayed in a random order, for example in order to prevent patients from memorizing the answers of the test). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Modified Samec to show the rows in random order like the method of Alster. Doing so would prevent the user from memorizing the order of the rows and allow for more accurate data collection.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samec (US 20170000329 A1) in view of Hykin (Intravitreal ranibizumab versus aflibercept versus bevacizumab for macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion: the LEAVO non-inferiority three-arm RCT) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Gao (US 20250302297 A1).
In regards to claim 11 Modified Samec teaches the method of Claim 1. Modified Samec fails to teach each determining a stress level based on the user response to the respective visual pattern displayed in the respective region; and in accordance with a determination that the stress level satisfies a response criterion, associating the respective region with the respective vision correction filter. Gao teaches determining a user’s eye fatigue parameter in response to a prescription in order to choose the prescription that causes the lease amount of fatigue on the eye ([0007] fatigue is inherently caused by eye stressing and straining to focus on the image, the response criterion is the parameter being the lowest out of the prescriptions tested). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Modified Samec to include determining a fatigue parameter like the method of Gao and use that to help determine which lens power is best for the user. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of choosing a prescription that doesn’t cause eye stress/strain in an unbiased way.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samec (US 20170000329 A1) in view of Hykin (Intravitreal ranibizumab versus aflibercept versus bevacizumab for macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion: the LEAVO non-inferiority three-arm RCT) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Salter (US 20250147578 A1).
In regards to claim 14 Modified Samec teaches the method of Claim 1, including determining an orientation of a person’s gaze using the user’s head position ([0140] the orientation of the gaze of the person is based on a position of a head of the person). Modified Samec fails to teach a method further comprising: determining whether the HMD is oriented forward, wherein the visual pattern is rendered and the user response is obtained and processed in accordance with a determination that the HMD is oriented forward. Salter teaches displaying an interface when a the head pose value corresponds to a motion of the head of the user toward a first location, a user interface is displayed in the environment ([0056] “In some implementations, the condition is a rotation of a head-forward vector toward the first location. In some implementations, the head-forward vector indicates a direction in which the head of the user is facing”). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Modified Samec to include determining the user is facing the location where the eye chart is to be projected like the method of Salter. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of ensuring the user is in the proper position to initiate the eye exam and to allow for the device to properly display the eye chart in the direction the user is facing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY EPPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-0818. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/LUCY EPPERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ADAM J EISEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights