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 .
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s request for continued examination; filed January 15, 2026.
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application.
The newly filed information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on October 1, 2025 has been considered.
Applicant is encouraged to set up an interview with the Examiner to try and work out how to overcome all pending issues.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026, regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are partially persuasive. Per claim 1 and related dependent claims, claim 1 recites “A self-service controlled dispensing system comprising: a mobile device including one or more first processors configured to cause the first mobile device to…” However, the claim later recites in the last lines “enabling the first controlled dispensing machine to dispense a controlled product or service to the user.” The dispensing machine is not part of the claimed system as recited in claim 1. The dispensing machine is later recited in claim 6 and further comprising the system of claim 1, the mobile device. However, the issue is with claim 1 since is recites a step to be carried out by the dispensing machine, rendering the limitation indefinite for shifting the scope of the claims. Applicant may cancel the limitation at issue, “enabling the first controlled dispensing machine to dispense a controlled product or service to the user,” or recite it as a wherein clause but with knowledge that such a limitation would not have any patentable weight. Claims 11-20 are directed to a method and the same recitation in claim 11 is not an issue under indefiniteness but an issue of patentable weight. Therefore only claim 1 and its correlated dependent claims are rejected.
Furthermore, the claims, claims 1 and 11, recite the user as positively performing a function; “receive a user request entered by a user of the mobile device.” See IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 77 USPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Removal of such user actions is advised. The limitation “receive a user request to send a payment via a wireless transmission from the mobile device to the first controlled dispensing machine” is sufficient and would overcome the issue. There is no need to recite that the user is entering the request.
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments, pages 8-9, regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims capture a scope that cannot be carried out in a human mind. Applicant points to the decoding of a digital ID received via radio transmission or decoding an image and performing validation of a user using stored biometric information. As a result, Applicant argues that it is not possible for such a claimed scope to be carried out by a human mind, which does not have the ability to send radio signals via radio hardware, signal processing, “and executable instructions operating on machine-readable data;” id., 8. Applicant also agues that the claims are eligible since they require “specific technological mechanisms for doing so, including memory-stored digital identifications, biometric validation executed locally on a mobile device, wireless transmission of payment and verification credentials and machine-level enablement of controlled dispensing device… [which] are concrete computing operation, not mental steps or pen-and-paper processes; id.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims capture an abstract idea of merely sending data in response to validation of a user without significantly more. The abstract idea is characterized under mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. Regarding the first characterization, the claims, when the additional elements are removed, amount to mere instructions and functions that in fact can be carried out by at least two humans, and with use of pen and paper. Mental processes are defined to include concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Therefore, information can be passed from one human to another verbally or in writing. The data can include user biometric information, such as a fingerprint on a paper, a digital identifier generated via a brain and written on a paper, and receiving an identifier from another human, decoding it via generalized decoding mechanisms using a human mind and pen and paper, payment information (cash or the like), and verification credential information to be sent to the another human to obtain a product or service from the another human. The elements argued by the Applicant, including memory-stored digital identifications, biometric validation executed locally on a mobile device, wireless transmission of payment and verification credentials and machine-level enablement of controlled dispensing device, radio transmission, and wireless transmission or communication are additional elements, which are utilized to apply the abstract idea. Meaning, the additional elements are used as a tool, including instructions, to cause the tool (i.e. generic computer(s) or device(s)) to perform the abstract idea; MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, the additional elements argued by the applicant amount to mere linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; utilizing a vending machine to carry out a transaction instead of a human to human sales operation; see MPEP 2106.05(h). More importantly, the Examiner notes that the additional elements, as argued, are recited at a high level, they are generic, and amounts to mere functions that can be carried out using generic computers. For example, sending and receiving data, encoding and decoding data, validating data, displaying data, communicating data using communication means that are wireless between devices. The additional elements or limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or generic devices to carry out generic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, evaluating/validating data, displaying data, and outputting a result. The additional elements automate the abstract idea. Accordingly, even in combination, the 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.
Applicant only argues the mental processes abstract grouping and does not comment on the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity. Assuming arguendo that the abstract idea does not fall under the grouping of mental processes, as described above, the abstract idea clearly falls under certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial interactions such as sales activities and business relations. The claims and Applicant’s arguments clearly convey a link between a user’s personal and financial information, an entity validating the user and their financial data, and an entity that offers a product or service for sale. The claims clearly capture the user trying to purchase a product by sending funds to the entity with the product based on payment information that has been validated and stored. Furthermore, the activity described by the claims of a user creating an account, creating an identifier, finding a vending machine/seller, selecting the seller, and sending payment information and user verification credentials based on the user identifier to the vending machine after validating the user clearly highlights the abstract idea of sales activities. Without such activities, the user would not be able to obtain the product they wish to purchase. Therefore, the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea, as determined above, and fall under two of the three abstract idea groupings.
Applicant further argues that even if the claims are directed to an abstract idea, that the claims “integrate any such concepts into a practical application that improves the functioning of computing systems used for authentication, authorization, and controlled dispensing.” Applicant continues by noting that the claims “address a specific technical problem in distributed, self-service dispensing environments… [and that the] claimed solution is not conventional or generic. Instead, the claims recited a coordinated ordered combination of technical steps… The architecture improves computing systems in multiple respects… [including] shifting biometric validation and credential management to the mobile device while maintaining linkage to prior server-based verification, the claims reduce network dependency, improve transaction efficiency, and enhance security against replay attacks, credential theft, and unauthorized access. By enabling the controlled dispensing machine to rely on a transmitted verification credential tied to a locally validated digital identification, the system improves the reliability and autonomy of machine-to-machine authorization.” Id., 9.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to analyzing the claims under Step-2A, Prong II, the claims are not found to include additional elements that would amount to a practical application. Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, no proof is found of a technical solution to a technical problem. The claims merely capture a concept that allows for a user to utilize their mobile device to gain a product from a self-service machine and adds validation and transmission of data to the scope to try and claim the argued solutions rooted in computer technology and linked to a technical field. The transmission of data is not claimed in a way that is unique and amounts to any claimed solution to a technical problem. Likewise, the registration of the user and using the mobile device to capture and authenticate the user is not recited in any way shape or form that would be deemed as a technical solution to a technical problem or technical field. The selection of a vending-machine and transmission of data to that machine to get a product is also not technically improved or technical at all. Every single limitation, individually and as a whole under the broadest reasonable interpretation, amounts to generic high level computer functions that fail to capture a technical problem rooted in computer technology or technical field. The claims do not improve security of transactions, because the use of user information and biometrics is again high level and generic and is not recited in a way that would amount to a practical application. The claims fail short of addressing any claim to a technical problem or claim to a specific architecture that solves a technical problem rooted in computer technology or field because the claimed scope simply recites generic functions and nothing more. Automating an abstract idea using additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality does not equate to a technical solution. It equates to applying the additional high-level elements to the abstract idea. As a result, the additional elements / limitations are determined to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, the 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 Examiner points to MPEP 2106.04(I), which clearly conveys that even newly discovered or novel abstract ideas are still exceptions. MPEP 2106.04(I) states: “The Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. For example, the mathematical formula in Flook, the laws of nature in Mayo, and the isolated DNA in Myriad were all novel or newly discovered, but nonetheless were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions because they were “‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that lie beyond the domain of patent protection.” Myriad, 569 U.S. 576, 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1976, 1978 (noting that Myriad discovered the BRCA1 and BRCA1 genes and quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965); Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 (“the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”); Mayo, 566 U.S. 73-74, 78, 101 USPQ2d 1966, 1968 (noting that the claims embody the researcher's discoveries of laws of nature). The Supreme Court’s cited rationale for considering even “just discovered” judicial exceptions as exceptions stems from the concern that “without this exception, there would be considerable danger that the grant of patents would ‘tie up’ the use of such tools and thereby ‘inhibit future innovation premised upon them.’” Myriad, 569 U.S. at 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1978-79 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 86, 101 USPQ2d at 1971). See also Myriad, 569 U.S. at 591, 106 USPQ2d at 1979 (“Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry.”). The Federal Circuit has also applied this principle, for example, when holding a concept of using advertising as an exchange or currency to be an abstract idea, despite the patentee’s arguments that the concept was “new”. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Cf. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea”).”
Emphasis added.
Furthermore, Under MPEP 2106.04(d)(III), the section cited recites that the “specification… must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner… the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets for an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.” The MPEP clearly outlines that the specification must include the improvements to the technology and that the claims must recite such improvement. Here the specification is directed to a problem regarding “age-verification hardware onto the machine itself, but these often fall short of expectations. On-machine cameras, typically exorbitant in price, struggle when lighting conditions are not perfect. Expensive hardware also becomes targets for vandals. But what's worse, the user experience suffers, laden with friction at the checkout. At self-serve alcohol pour stations, customers frequently return for that second round, and today's solutions leave them endlessly re-verifying their age at checkout. These demands present significant barriers for operators looking to scale their self-serve beverage solutions and compete with the overall goal of self-service operations: automating, simplifying, and removing as many low-value manual processes as possible to lower the workload of employees and free up time for more valuable tasks. Moreover, today's solutions lack the necessary responsibility and compliance measures, such as preventing over-serving, required to sell adult beverages responsibly;” Paragraphs 0009-0010. The Specification further captures the solution to the problem of alcohol dispensing and control of said dispensing in Paragraph 0068, which states “The disclosed system provides an in-app one-time age verification process that gives consumers long-term access (no need to rely on staff for manual ID checks or issuing of RFID cards). Further, both payment and age-verification may be performed within the consumer’s smartphone, which results in improved operational efficiency. Lastly, no expensive hardware at the location of the machine 102 is required. No payment terminal, digital screen, wall space, scanner, or equipment is required other than the processing module 230, which provides a plug-and-play solution that integrates seamlessly into any beer tap dispenser without the need for complex equipment.” The claims fail to address the problem as clearly outlined in the Specification and instead capture a broad request to dispense after user validation at a mobile device. Furthermore, the claims are directed to a mobile device not the vending machine. The vending machine is not incorporated into the claims until claim 6, and even then, the claims as a whole amount to mere additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality carried out by generic devices/computers. The claims do not include additional elements that would capture a clear technical problem rooted in computer technology or technical field in order to amount to at least a practical application. As such, the claims are deemed non-patentable and the rejection is maintained.
Under Step-2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Finally, the dependent claims fail to include additional elements that would amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. The Dependent claims further describe the abstract idea. They include additional elements such as a display of the mobile device, a user interface element, display a message on the display, the first controlled dispensing machine includes one or more second processors, enable a visual signal for dispensing, and at best, modifying the visual signal and cause the controlled product or service to cease being dispensed to the user.
Utilizing rules and conditions to provide a product is not an improvement to a technical problem, it does not amount to a practical application or significantly more. Similarly, providing visual cues does not equate to a technical solution or a practical application or significantly more.
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 1-10 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.
Per claim 1, the independent claim is directed to a “self-service controlled dispensing system comprising: a mobile device” and what the mobile device does. However, the claims later recite “enabling the first controlled dispensing machine to dispense a controlled product or service to the user,” which is outside the scope of the claims. Because the dispensing machine is not part of the claimed scope of claim 1 the scope is not clear; the scope shifts to the dispensing machine instead of the mobile device. Applicant may remove this limitation, or add a wherein clause to capture this limitation for clarification but not for patentable weight. No patentable weight will be given to the limitation as long as the claim is directed to only the mobile device and what it does.
The dependent claims are also rejected under the same rational. Any teaching of a mobile device sending a payment and verification credential will be determined as reading on the claim limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of sending payment and verification credential information to settle a transaction in response to user validation without significantly more.
The abstract idea is categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. More specifically, the abstract idea is further characterized under commercial interaction including sales activities or behaviors, business relations, and concepts performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion using pen and paper. Creating a user account to process transactions is a pinnacle action in sales or sales activities. Likewise, the creation of a user identifier, finding location merchants or in this case, a dispensing machine, and sending funds to settle a transaction for goods/services along with verification information again highlights the commercial interactions, business relations between the buyer and the seller. The claimed scope as a whole can be carried out using a human mind, and if necessary with the help of pen and paper. User registration can be done using memory or pen and paper, along with providing or generating and identifier for the user based on conditions. Navigating the user to another user at a local store, kiosk, or vending machine, and allow the user to transact with the another user to obtain the product/service they desire.
Claim 1, in pertinent part, recites:
A self-service controlled dispensing system comprising…
create a user account, including verifying an age or identity of the user via a server and securing the user account with biometric validation at the [entity]…;
create a digital identification based on the verified age or identity and store the digital identification…;
identify one or more controlled dispensing machines in proximity to the… [entity] by decoding a digital identifier of the controlled dispensing machine conveyed by radio transmissions from the controlled dispensing machine or by capturing a digital code displayed in conjunction with the controlled dispensing machine;
receive a user selection of a first controlled dispensing machine of the one or more identified controlled dispensing machines;
receive a user request entered by a user of the mobile device to send a payment via a wireless transmission from the… [entity] to the first controlled dispensing machine;
in response to the user request to send the payment to the first controlled dispensing machine, use validation instructions stored… to validate the user with a biometric check; and
in accordance with a successful user validation, transmit (i) the payment and (ii) a verification credential corresponding to the digital identification to the first controlled dispensing machine...
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: a mobile device including one or more first processors configured to cause the first mobile device to, a digital user account, a memory, and a wireless transmission from the mobile device. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, wherein the claims merely amount to an abstract idea that is implemented using generic computers, performing generic computer functions such as generating data, analyzing data, sending and receiving data before determining an outcome. The additional elements merely automate the abstract idea. Each of the additional elements / limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, the 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 claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims include a display of the mobile device, a user interface element, display a message on the display, the first controlled dispensing machine includes one or more second processors, enable a visual signal for dispensing, and modifying the visual signal and cause the controlled product or service to cease being dispensed to the user. However, these additional elements are again recited at a high level of generality and amount to merely automating the abstract idea. The additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, the 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 dependent claims fail to recite additional elements that would amount to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed above. The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Additional References
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0342507 to Hubbard et al. (Hubbard) teaches the Applicant’s claimed scope. Hubbard teaches ID information can be stored in a decentralized structure. The identity information may include age verification information for the purchase or operation of certain tobacco products, such as an electronic nicotine delivery systems (“ENDS”) device, which may include aerosol delivery devices. The tobacco products or devices may have an age verification requirement or other identity requirements needed to authenticate a user and that information must be stored. A decentralized structure for storing the identity information may improve the security of that identity information while also providing a mechanism for accessing the information for verification or authentication purposes.
In one embodiment, a system includes a network and a decentralized storage of data coupled with the network and the decentralized storage utilizes Blockchain technology. The system includes a user device coupled with the network and configured to communicate with the decentralized storage. The communication includes personal identifying information about the user that is sent from the user device for storage at the decentralized storage. The personal identifying information is provided from the decentralized storage for identifying a user and for verifying an age of a user. This system may further include an aerosol delivery device coupled with the user device, such that operation of the aerosol delivery device by a user depends on authenticating the personal identifying information from the decentralized storage for that user. The aerosol delivery device may not operate unless the user is authenticated. The system may further include a vending machine for selling age-restricted products that is configured to communicate with the decentralized storage for verifying a user's identity and age based on the personal identifying information about that user that is stored with the decentralized storage. In one example, the vending machine may not sell the age-restricted products unless the identity and the age of the user is verified. In one example, the vending machine may be a self-service kiosk and/or the age-restricted products may include aerosol delivery devices. In another example, the vending machine may include a roving vending machine that can act as a pop-up shop for aerosol delivery devices, accessories, and/or chargers. In another example, payment information may be stored at the decentralized storage and provided with the authenticating from the decentralized storage.
In one embodiment, a method for providing an age-restricted may include requesting identity information for a user from a decentralized storage and receiving, from the decentralized storage, the identity information. The method may include verifying an age of a user based on the identity information, accepting a payment for the age-restricted product after the age of the user is verified, and providing the age-restricted product after the accepting of the payment. In one example, the method may include registering a user with the decentralized storage by providing identity information to the decentralized storage. In one example, the age verification may include confirming the user matches the identity information. In one example, the decentralized storage includes storage with Blockchain technology, and the identity information for the user is stored in a particular Blockchain. In one example, each item of the identity information for the user is stored in a subsequent block for the particular Blockchain. Further, the payment may be confirmed by checking the identity information from the decentralized storage. In one example, the method may include tracking a chain of custody of the age-restricted product by adding each interaction to the decentralized storage. The method may further include utilizing, by a trade marketing representative, the age verification for recommending additional products or services. In one example, the age-restricted product may include an aerosol delivery device. In one example, the transaction data from the payment transaction may be added to the decentralized storage and associated with the identity information.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on for PTO-892.
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 EL MEHDI OUSSIR whose telephone number is (571)270-0191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, NEHA PATEL can be reached on 571-270-1492. 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.
Sincerely,
/EL MEHDI OUSSIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699