Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This office action for the 18/908568 application is in response to the communications filed February 04, 2026.
Claims 21 and 33 were amended February 04, 2026.
Claims 21-40 are currently pending and considered below.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claim 21,
Step 1: The claim recites subject matter within a statutory category as a machine.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which Prong 1 determines whether a claim recites a judicial exception. Prong 2 determines if the additional limitations of the claim integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. If the additional elements of the claim fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim contains subject matter that recites an abstract idea, with the steps of monitoring a subject patient: retrieve an image, the image associated with the subject patient; detect eye gaze data representing a gaze direction of the device user; determine, based on the eye gaze data, that the device user is associated with a gaze direction away from the displayed viewport location exceeding a gaze timer threshold, wherein the gaze direction being away from the displayed viewport location indicates that the device user is not monitoring the subject patient at the displayed viewport location; and generate a signal representing an alert of the gaze direction being away from the displayed viewport location. These steps, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation recite:
certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices including: hedging; insurance; mitigating risk; etc., commercial or legal interactions including: agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; etc., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including: social activities; teaching; following rules or instructions; etc.) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. The identified abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon identified above, in the context of this claim, encompasses a certain method of organizing human activity, namely managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. This is because each of the limitations of the abstract idea recite a list of rules or instructions that a human person can follow in the course of their personal behavior. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers at least the recited methods of organizing human activity above, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f), such as:
“A … computing device associated with a device user for remotely monitoring”, “the device comprising”, “a processor”, “a gaze detection device coupled to the processor”, “a memory coupled to the processor and storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed, configure the processor to” and “based on the gaze detection device” which corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Paragraph [0022] of the as-filed specification describes that the hardware that implements the steps of the abstract idea amount to nothing more than generic computer components. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“data stream for display at a displayed viewport location at the monitoring computing device” and “data stream” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Accordingly, this claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“data stream for display at a displayed viewport location at the monitoring computing device” and “data stream” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 22,
Claim 22 depends from claim 21 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 22 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“retrieve physiological data associated with the subject patient; determine that the physiological data meets a threshold representing a physiological incident associated with the subject patient; and generate a signal for display representing the physiological incident.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the memory storing processor-executable instructions, when executed, configure the processor to:” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 23,
Claim 23 depends from claim 22 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 23 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the physiological data includes at least one of heart rate data, blood pressure data, SpO2 data, or temperature data associated with the subject patient.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 24,
Claim 24 depends from claim 22 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 24 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein retrieving physiological data associated with the subject patient includes obtaining physiological data based on at least one of video feed data or physiological sensor data corresponding to the subject patient.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 25,
Claim 25 depends from claim 22 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 25 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“determining based on an image recognition model a movement incident associated with the subject patient; and generating a signal for display representing the movement incident.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the memory storing processor-executable instructions, when executed, configure the processor to:” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“retrieving video data associated with the subject patient;” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 26,
Claim 26 depends from claim 25 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 26 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein determining the movement incident associated with the subject patient is based on at least one of object recognition or successive video frame difference operations.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 27,
Claim 27 depends from claim 25 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 27 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the image recognition model configured to determine the movement incident is based on a motion sensitivity threshold.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 28,
Claim 28 depends from claim 27 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 28 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the motion sensitivity threshold is configured based on a monitored condition of the subject patient, wherein the monitored condition includes at least one of monitoring for risk of seizures of the subject patient or monitoring for risk of the subject patient falling out of a bed.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 29,
Claim 29 depends from claim 25 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 29 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the image recognition model for determining the movement incident is based on at least one of estimating pixel class probabilities, determining motion contour properties, or motion detection filtering operations.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 30,
Claim 30 depends from claim 25 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 30 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the image recognition model is based on at least one of a convolutional neural network or a recurrent neural network configured to recognize image portions and predict the movement incident.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 31,
Claim 31 depends from claim 21 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 31 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“retrieve at least one of physiological data associated with the subject patient or video data associated with the subject patient; determine at least one of a physiological incident or a movement incident associated with the subject patient; and in response to determining that a combination of the signal representing an alert of the gaze direction being away from the displayed viewport location and a signal representing the physiological incident or the movement incident is maintained beyond an incident duration threshold, generate a signal for display representing an urgent alert associated with the subject patient.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the memory storing processor-executable instructions, when executed, configure the processor to:” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 32,
Claim 32 depends from claim 21 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 32 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the gaze detection device includes an eye tracking device.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 33,
Claim 33 is substantially similar to claim 21. Accordingly, claim 33 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 21.
As per claim 34,
Claim 34 is substantially similar to claim 22. Accordingly, claim 34 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 22.
As per claim 35,
Claim 35 is substantially similar to claim 23. Accordingly, claim 35 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 23.
As per claim 36,
Claim 36 is substantially similar to claim 24. Accordingly, claim 36 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 24.
As per claim 37,
Claim 37 is substantially similar to claim 25. Accordingly, claim 37 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 25.
As per claim 38,
Claim 38 is substantially similar to claim 26. Accordingly, claim 38 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 26.
As per claim 39,
Claim 39 is substantially similar to claim 29. Accordingly, claim 39 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 29.
As per claim 40,
Claim 40 is substantially similar to claim 31. Accordingly, claim 40 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 31.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 21-40 contain subject matter free of prior art.
The Examiner has conducted a thorough search of the prior art and could not find a single reference, or combination of references with adequate rationale to combine, to teach the limitation of “determine, based on the eye gaze data, that the device user is associated with a gaze direction away from the displayed viewport location for a duration of time exceeding a gaze timer threshold, wherein the gaze direction being away from the displayed viewport location indicates that the device user is not monitoring the subject patient at the displayed viewport location”. The closest prior art that the Examiner was able to find was:
Tran et al. (US 2016/0066788; herein referred to as Tran) which teaches a monitoring system that monitors a user’s gaze. This monitoring is of a patient. However, the user and the patient are the same individual. The pending claims require the user monitoring the subject patient be different, tracking the eyes of the monitor, not those of the patient.
Sicconi et al. (US 2022/0164026; herein referred to as Sicconi) which teaches a user monitoring a field of view in which a system tracks their view to ensure that the user is monitoring the target field. When the user is not monitoring the desired field, the system alerts the user to reorient their gaze to the correct field. However, the user is a driver and the field of view is outside a driver window. The system ensures that a driver is keeping their eyes on the road for a reasonable amount of time. This field of endeavor is completely different than that of a medical field.
It can be seen from the foregoing that the medical field does not have gaze detection systems to follow the limitations of the pending claims. Those of ordinary skill in the art in medical monitoring would not have looked to the motor vehicle safety arts to improve patient monitoring. Accordingly, claims 21-40 contain subject matter that is free of prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 04, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101 are not persuasive.
The Applicants argue that the pending claims do not recite performance of commercial or legal interactions, subject matter that falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. The Applicant’s argument here is not relevant to the rejections made by the Examiner. The Examiner has not characterized the pending claims as being part of performance of commercial or legal interactions. Accordingly, the Applicant is arguing against a position that the Examiner has not taken. This argument is not persuasive.
The Applicants further argue that the pending claims provide an improvement to monitoring computing device associated with a device user for remotely monitoring subject patients. The combination of features of the amended claims do not merely recite certain methods of organizing human activity and are not abstract ideas.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has failed to provide any explanation of how technology is being improved. Even if technology were improved here, a point that the Examiner does not acquiesce, an improvement to technology does not preclude an abstract idea from being recited. That is an element considered under Step 2A Prong 2.
The Applicants further argue that the amended claims provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has failed to provide any sort of evidence of what alleged practical application is present in the pending claims. There is no discussion. The Applicant merely makes a statement and then moves on to a subsequent argument. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive because there is no rational basis provided by the Applicant.
The Applicant further argues that the Office Action appears to characterize the additional elements of the pending claims in isolation as routine conventional operations. The Office should give weight to all of the claimed elements during Step 2A, Prong 2.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. After determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The Supreme Court has long distinguished between principles themselves (which are not patent eligible) and the integration of those principles into practical applications (which are patent eligible). See, e.g., Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 80, 84, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968-69, 1970 (2012) (noting that the Court in Diamond v. Diehr found ‘‘the overall process patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process integrated the equation into the process as a whole,’’ but the Court in Gottschalk v. Benson ‘‘held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle’’). The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements demonstrate that a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The list of considerations here is not intended to be exclusive or limiting. Additional elements can often be analyzed based on more than one type of consideration and the type of consideration is of no import to the eligibility analysis. An additional element to an abstract idea, by definition, cannot include the abstract idea itself. If an additional element included an abstract idea, it would simply just be an additional element. Only an additional element to an abstract idea can provide a practical application of the abstract idea. The identification of specific additional elements in the consideration of a practical application as is seen above, considers the claim as a whole because it considers the abstract idea in its proper context. See MPEP 2016.04(d).
The Applicant further argues that the amended features of the pending claims provide a practical application.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has again failed to articulate how or why the limitations of the pending claims provide a practical application. In contrast, the Examiner has provided a detailed explanation of how and why each element of the pending claims is not sufficient in providing a practical application.
The Applicant further argues that the pending claims are similar to claim 1 of Example 42 of the 2019 PEG, citing that the pending claims provide an improvement over prior art systems.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has failed to clearly identify what technical problem is being solved by which technical solution. An improvement over a prior art system does not necessarily mean that technology specifically is being improved. As far as the Examiner can tell, technology is operating in its ordinary capacity, being configured by specific steps. These steps do not appear to improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology. This point is further underscored by the apparent lack of articulation of what technology is being improved.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103 are persuasive for the reasons indicated above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A NEWTON whose telephone number is (313)446-6604. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM (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, PETER H. CHOI can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/CHAD A NEWTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681