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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on: 01/02/2025 are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/02/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-15 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.
With regards to claim 1, it recites “… a determination as to an object selected by the input operation by comparing … “, however the phrase “an object” in this limitation is unclear as to whether “an object” is selected from one of THE first object or THE second object, or whether “an object” is open ended, and can be any object that is determined after a comparison step occurring. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret “an object” as open ended and can encompass any object after a comparison step.
With regards to claims 2-13, they do not resolve the deficiencies of claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale as claim 1.
With regards to claims 14 and 15, they recite similar issue and are each rejected under similar rationale as claim 1.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 Analysis:
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 1 recites the following limitations (of which bolded limitations constitute a ‘mental process’ that covers performance of the limitations in the human mind).
An information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory and at least one processor which function as: a display control unit that performs control to display a screen including a first object and a second object different from the first object; a first obtainment unit that obtains a pressed coordinate point which is a coordinate point on the screen where an input operation on the screen by a user is performed; and a determination unit that makes a determination as to an object selected by the input operation by comparing a first priority level set for a type of the first object disposed within a predetermined range from the pressed coordinate point and a second priority level set for a type of the second object disposed within the predetermined range.
As a note, steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they
cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation,
judgement and opinion (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
With respect to the particular limitations that were bolded above, these steps can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion. For example, the particular limitations encompass: 1) evaluating a first priority level set for a type of the first object and second priority level for a type of the second object against a predetermined range and making a judgement to select an object.
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong Two
With regards to the following additional elements of:
“An information processing apparatus … at least one memory and at least one processor”, “unit that … ” - these additional elements are considered merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,. More specifically, these elements apply a judicial exception to a generic computer that employs generic computer functions (execution of steps and producing output based on the execution). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
a display control unit that performs control to display a screen including a first object and a second object different from the first object -these additional elements are considered merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. More specifically selecting a data source to be manipulated (such as manipulated to be displayed on a display) is an insufficient extra solution activity. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
a first obtainment unit that obtains a pressed coordinate point which is a coordinate point on the screen where an input operation on the screen by a user is performed -these additional elements are considered merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception as they are considered ‘mere data gathering’ iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
101 Analysis Step 2B
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception:
With regards to the following additional elements of:
“An information processing apparatus … at least one memory and at least one processor - these additional elements are considered merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,. More specifically, these elements apply a judicial exception to a generic computer that employs generic computer functions (execution of steps and producing output based on the execution). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
a display control unit that performs control to display a screen including a first object and a second object different from the first object -these additional elements are considered merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. More specifically selecting a data source to be manipulated (such as manipulated to be displayed on a display) is an insufficient extra solution activity. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
a first obtainment unit that obtains a pressed coordinate point which is a coordinate point on the screen where an input operation on the screen by a user is performed -these additional elements are considered merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception as they are considered ‘mere data gathering’ iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claims 2-13
Claims 2-13 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent
eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional
aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example aside from common additional elements mentioned in claim 1, these claims recite additional elements including :
“ image formation apparatus …” this additional element is considered merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,. More specifically, this element applies a judicial exception to a generic computer. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and also insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception
101 Analysis for claim 14
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 14 recites the following limitations (of which bolded limitations constitute a ‘mental process’ that covers performance of the limitations in the human mind).
An information processing apparatus having a display, the information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory and at least one processor which function as: a first obtainment unit that obtains a pressed coordinate point which is a coordinate point on a screen displayed on the display, the pressed coordinate point being where an input operation on the screen by a user is performed; a second obtainment unit that obtains a plurality of candidate coordinate points located within a predetermined range from the pressed coordinate point; a determination unit that makes a determination as to an object selected by the input operation by comparing a first priority level set for a type of a first object where any one of the plurality of candidate coordinate points is located and a second priority level set for a type of a second object where any one of the plurality of candidate coordinate points is located, the second object being different from the first object; and a transmission unit that transmits coordinates of the object determined by the determination unit to a rendering engine.
As a note, steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they
cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation,
judgement and opinion (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
With respect to the particular limitations that were bolded above, these steps can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion. For example, the particular limitations encompass: 1) evaluating a first priority level set for a type of the first object and second priority level for a type of the second object against a predetermined range and making a judgement to select an object.
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong Two
With regards to the following additional elements of:
“An information processing apparatus having a display, the information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory and at least one processor” - these additional elements are considered merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,. More specifically, these elements apply a judicial exception to a generic computer that employs generic computer functions (execution of steps and producing output based on the execution). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
“a first obtainment unit that obtains a pressed coordinate point which is a coordinate point on a screen displayed on the display, the pressed coordinate point being where an input operation on the screen by a user is performed; a second obtainment unit that obtains a plurality of candidate coordinate points located within a predetermined range from the pressed coordinate point; and a transmission unit that transmits coordinates of the object determined by the determination unit to a rendering engine” -these additional elements are considered merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception as they are considered ‘mere data gathering’ iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
101 Analysis Step 2B
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception:
With regards to the following additional elements of:
“An information processing apparatus having a display, the information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory and at least one processor” - these additional elements are considered merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,. More specifically, these elements apply a judicial exception to a generic computer that employs generic computer functions (execution of steps and producing output based on the execution). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
“a first obtainment unit that obtains a pressed coordinate point which is a coordinate point on a screen displayed on the display, the pressed coordinate point being where an input operation on the screen by a user is performed; a second obtainment unit that obtains a plurality of candidate coordinate points located within a predetermined range from the pressed coordinate point; and a transmission unit that transmits coordinates of the object determined by the determination unit to a rendering engine” -these additional elements are considered merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception as they are considered ‘mere data gathering’ iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
101 analysis for claim 15
With regards to claim 15, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1.
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, 6, 7, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddit1 (“Use Document.elementFromPoint to return the bottom-most element”, published: March 2023, pages 1-6) in view of Williamson et al (US Application: US 20090225039, published: Sep. 10, 2009, filed: Mar. 4, 2008).
With regards to claim 1, Reddit1 teaches an information processing … comprising:
…
a display control unit that performs control to display a screen including a first object and a second object different from the first object (page 1: a plurality of elements are present at a specific point when a user makes a selection, such as div and anchor type elements (<div> , <a >));
a first obtainment unit that obtains a pressed coordinate point which is a coordinate point on the screen where an input operation on the screen by a user is performed (page 2: the pressed/selected point is obtained from an input event using a ‘document.elementfrompoint’ function);
and
a determination unit that makes a determination as to an object selected by the input operation by comparing a first priority level set for a type of the first object disposed within a predetermined range from the pressed coordinate point and a second priority level set for a type of the second object disposed within the predetermined range (page 2, the ‘document.element.frompoint’ function returns a range of elements sorted in depth/z-order through logical selection of a document element having first topmost Z order and then a queryselector function is implemented to look through the elements from the top by looping through the returned list. As explained, the user can configure to isolate from other elements by checking for a specific desired target type (anchor type <a >) and then prioritizing the selected element having target-anchor type as the element that is target of the input operation (as opposed to an element that is not of target type by not matching the conditional if statement in the for loop).
However although Reddit1 teaches information processing of input events to prioritize the target element for input operation, such that the information processing is performed by an apparatus comprising: at least one memory and at least one processor.
Yet Williamson et al teaches the information processing is performed by an apparatus comprising: at least one memory and at least one processor (Abstract, paragraph 0020, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig 6: an information processing device includes a processor and memory to perform input processing of touch/press events applied to specific coordinates on a page and resolving the element selected ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Reddit1’s ability to process user input upon a web page through execution of a function that takes input events (having input coordinates) and resolving an element based upon the elements provided by the function for targeting input operation, such that the processing is performed by a device that includes a processor and memory for the input events (touch/press input events), as taught by Williamson et al. The combination would have allowed Reddit1 to have correctly interpreted touch events when a user provides touch input for a web page (Williamson et al, paragraph 0004).
With regards to claim 6. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Reddit1 and Williamson et al teaches wherein in a case where the first priority level is higher than the second priority level, the determination unit determines that the first object is the object selected by the input operation (as explained in the rejection of claim 1, the first object is initially higher priority than the second object when it is the top level returned element/object), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 7. The information processing apparatus according to claim 6, Reddit1 and Williamson et al teaches wherein even in a case where the pressed coordinate point is located on the second object, the determination unit determines that the first object is the object selected by the input operation (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, the pressed coordinate point is located on the second object in a further depth order, and the script applies a selection-query to prioritize the selection of the second object (anchor object <a>)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 13. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Reddit1 and Williamson et al teaches wherein the information processing apparatus is an image formation apparatus (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, a user makes a selection in displayed /rendered coordinate space having objects/elements (browser renders a webpage having the elements/objects (image of webpage having objects/elements) and the pressed/selection coordinate is identified), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 15, Reddit1, Williamson et al and Deisher et al teaches A control method of an information processing apparatus, the control method comprising: performing control to display a screen including a first object and a second object different from the first object; obtaining a pressed coordinate point which is a coordinate point on the screen where an input operation on the screen by a user is performed; and making a determination as to an object selected by the input operation by comparing a first priority level set for a type of the first object disposed within a predetermined range from the pressed coordinate point and a second priority level set for a type of the second object disposed within the predetermined range, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddit1 (“Use Document.elementFromPoint to return the bottom-most element”, published: March 2023, pages 1-6) in view of Williamson et al (US Application: US 20090225039, published: Sep. 10, 2009, filed: Mar. 4, 2008) in view of StackOverflow1 (“jQuery multiple selectors order”, published: Feb. 6, 2015, pages 1-3).
With regards to claim 2. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Reddit1 and Williamson et al teaches wherein the first priority level is a preset priority level corresponding to an HTML element … , and the second priority level is a preset priority level corresponding to an HTML element indicating the type of the second object (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (and page 2 of Reddit1), the first element discovered is DIV, and the second element <a> is ultimately selected for target operation after querying the elements and defining a priority based on a defined conditional statement to search for the element type and apply the operation. More specifically, the topmost element in this example is labeled as ‘divE1’ when used in the query selector and for iterator and the query selector obtains elements /children in a particular order), and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach the first priority level … indicating the type of the first object … .
Yet StackOverflow1 teaches the first priority level … indicating the type of the first object … … and the second priority level … indicating the type of the second object (page 1: the element set being iterated upon is in priority order can be performed using an array combined with an iterator ‘.each’ to select items in the set , such that priority applied to an index value for elements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Reddit1 and Williamson et al’s ability to obtain a set of HTML elements to iterate through (prioritize) using a line of code to specify /prioritize a match to apply input operation, such that multiple matches can be specified using an iterator that specifies a preset/user-coded order of elements from a set, as taught by StackOverflow1. The combination would have allowed elements to be traversed in a desired order rather than a default order.
With regards to claim 3. The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, the combination of Reddit1, Williamson et al and StackOverflow1 teaches wherein the determination unit compares the first priority level and the second priority level based on a preset priority order indicating priority levels corresponding to a plurality of HTML elements ( as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2, elements can be prioritized for selection (to apply input operation) through user designated code indicating position order of the elements being selected), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 4. The information processing apparatus according to claim 3, the combination of Reddit1, Williamson et al and StackOverflow1 teaches further comprising a control unit that performs control to change, based on a user operation, the priority levels corresponding to the plurality of HTML elements for each web application (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 3, user code selection/specification of the iterator position number designates the element selection order), and is rejected under similar rationale
Claim(s) 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddit1 (“Use Document.elementFromPoint to return the bottom-most element”, published: March 2023, pages 1-6) in view of Williamson et al (US Application: US 20090225039, published: Sep. 10, 2009, filed: Mar. 4, 2008) in view of Deisher et al (US Application: US 20210117152, published: Apr. 22, 2021, filed: Dec. 23, 2020).
With regards to claim 10. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, the combination of Reddit1 and Williamson et al teaches … the determination made by the determination … within the predetermined range, and the information processing apparatus … , as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach wherein a plurality of candidate coordinate points used for the determination made by the determination unit are located within the predetermined range, and the information processing apparatus further comprises a second obtainment unit that, in a case where any one of the plurality of candidate coordinate points is located on any one of the first object and the second object, obtains a first candidate coordinate point located on the first object and a second candidate coordinate point located on the second object.
Yet Deisher et al teaches wherein a plurality of candidate coordinate points used for the determination made by the determination unit are located within the predetermined range, and the information processing apparatus further comprises a second obtainment unit that, in a case where any one of the plurality of candidate coordinate points is located on any one of the first object and the second object, obtains a first candidate coordinate point located on the first object and a second candidate coordinate point located on the second object (paragraphs 0033 and 0093: a display region includes a plurality of elements/objects residing of a coordinate space (plurality of coordinates) and rendering logic is interpreted to encompass resolving which content is the identified content in order to provided updated display output representative of the identified content. More specifically resolution logic includes processing a user’s touch input event at one of the coordinate points, and recognizing a plurality of elements (that each reside within their coordinate positions) are a spatial distance away. The element residing at a particular location in coordinate space satisfying a predetermined closest range requirement is identified/recognized as the ‘identified content’ and output is generated to include an outline of the identified content).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Reddit1 and Williamson et al’s ability to resolve a target element by processing a range of elements iteratively (based upon an input coordinate) to prioritize selection of one element (claimed ‘second object’) over another type of element (claimed ‘first object’), such that the range logic could have been modified to further prioritize based upon closest-range condition of the objects/elements in coordinate space, as taught by Deisher et al. The combination would have implemented an effective/objective way to resolve a selection for an element/object when there are a plurality of other elements/objects in range of an input location.
With regards to claim 14, the combination of Reddit 1 and Williamson et al teaches an information processing apparatus having a display, the information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory and at least one processor which function as: a first obtainment unit that obtains a pressed coordinate point which is a coordinate point on a screen displayed on the display, the pressed coordinate point being where an input operation on the screen by a user is performed; a determination unit that makes a determination as to an object selected by the input operation by comparing a first priority level set for a type of a first object [in coordinate range with respect to the pressed coordinate point] and a second priority level set for a type of a second object [in coordinate range with respect to the pressed coordinate point], the second object being different from the first object, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However although the combination of Reddit1 and Williamson et al teaches that elements can be identified/processed iteratively to prioritize selection of one element (such claimed ‘second object’) over another element (such as claimed ‘first object’) through a range of elements provided from a document.elementfrompoint function (that returns a list or elements in depth range), the combination does not teach the range returned encompasses ‘first object where any one of the plurality of candidate coordinate points is located and a second priority level … of a second object where any one of the plurality of candidate coordinate points is located …; and a second obtainment unit that obtains a plurality of candidate coordinate points located within a predetermined range from the pressed coordinate point; a transmission unit that transmits coordinates of the object determined by the determination unit to a rendering engine.
Yet Deisher et al teaches ‘first object where any one of the plurality of candidate coordinate points is located and a second priority level … of a second object where any one of the plurality of candidate coordinate points is located …; and a second obtainment unit that obtains a plurality of candidate coordinate points located within a predetermined range from the pressed coordinate point; a transmission unit that transmits coordinates of the object determined by the determination unit to a rendering engine (paragraph 0033, 0093: a display region includes a plurality of elements/objects residing of a coordinate space (plurality of coordinates) and rendering logic is interpreted to encompass resolving which content is the identified content in order to provided updated display output representative of the identified content. More specifically resolution logic includes processing a user’s touch input event at one of the coordinate points, and recognizing a plurality of elements (that each reside within their coordinate positions) are a spatial distance away. The element residing at a particular location in coordinate space satisfying a predetermined closest range requirement is identified/recognized as the ‘identified content’ and output is generated to include an outline of the identified content).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Reddit1 and Williamson et al’s ability to resolve a target element by processing a range of elements iteratively (based upon an input coordinate) to prioritize selection of one element (claimed ‘second object’) over another type of element (claimed ‘first object’), such that the range logic could have been modified to further prioritize based upon closest-range condition of the objects/elements in coordinate space, as taught by Deisher et al. The combination would have implemented an effective/objective way to resolve a selection for an element/object when there are a plurality of other elements/objects in range of an input location.
NOTE
The examiner recommends an interview to discuss Figures 15B and 15D and emphasizing HTML elements for a web page for the independent claims, in the interest of expediting the prosecution of the application in view of current rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Premchandran (US Application: US 20040210851): This reference teaches navigation between elements on a page of content.
Baudisch et al (US Application: US 20060036955): This reference teaches touch point interaction processing on a web page.
Nakagoe et al (US Application: US 20130232424): This reference teaches user operation detection system for web application event processing.
Harrison (US Application: US 20150199309): This reference teaches target graphical element identification and spatial analysis between current and target graphical elements in a webpage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights