DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Step 1: It must be determined whether the invention falls in one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1 – 4 and 20 are directed towards a device and a medium, (machine), and claims 5 - 19 are directed towards a method, (process), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 1 is analyzed below with limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
1. A device comprising a memory for storing computer instructions and at least one processor in communication with the memory, wherein, when the at least one processor executes the computer instructions, the at least one processor is configured to cause the device to: display a plurality of virtual items having virtual functions respectively in a virtual scene, the plurality of virtual items being individually accessible to a virtual object; and display a target virtual item in the virtual scene in response to a first trigger operation targeting at least two virtual items of the plurality of virtual items, the target virtual item being obtained by assembling the at least two virtual items into one, the target virtual item supporting a new virtual function, and the new virtual function of the target virtual item being different from the virtual function of each of the at least two virtual items alone.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 5 and 20. Dependent claims 2 – 4 and 6 - 19 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following grouping below:
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more human, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system comprising a plurality of virtual items in a virtual scene, wherein the claims further disclose assembling at least two virtual items into a single virtual item, wherein the newly assembled single virtual item comprises a new virtual function that is different from the two initial virtual items. The claims recite instructions with these features. Here, a human can observe a plurality of virtual items in a virtual scene, and then make the determination of which virtual items to combine to create a single virtual item that is favorable to the player. For example, in the event that a player is playing a shooter game, (e.g. Call of Duty), wherein a player collects materials, such as steel and fiberglass, while controlling a player character in a virtual scene, a player can observe the collected materials, and then determine what type of new weapon to craft by combining the collected materials.
The claims are also directed towards an abstract idea of rules for conducting a game which falls into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system that presents a game to a player comprising a plurality of virtual items in a virtual scene, wherein the player is instructed to create a new virtual item with a new virtual function by combining at least of the plurality of virtual items. The claimed invention can be practically performed as mental process by a human managing virtual game items in a virtual game. A human take control the game items and make game determinations in their mind. For example, in the event that a player is playing a board game, nothing precludes a human from combining two items together to make a single item corresponding to rules of the board game.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic device and memory along with instructions that generate and present a plurality of virtual items in a virtual scene, wherein at least two virtual items are assembled together into one virtual item, which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language does recite an electronic device, memory, a processor, (claim 9), and an account that is associated with a user, however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art, (See Yates et al. 2009/0327723 par. 0047 regarding combining game elements to make a new item as being known in the art). Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,246,251.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims are drawn towards the system and method claim versions of the parent 12,246,251, except the current claims does not disclose the limitation of the new virtual function of the new virtual object being realized without switching the virtual item. Therefore the current claims are a broader version of the parent claims regarding this feature, as shown in table below. Independent claims 5 and 20 includes similar language to that of independent claim 1, wherein dependent claims 2 – 4 and 6 - 19 include similar language as the dependent claims in the parent 12,246,251. Therefore the claims are not patentably distinct.
Pending Claim 1:
Patented Claim 1:
1. A device comprising a memory for storing computer instructions and at least one processor in communication with the memory, wherein, when the at least one processor executes the computer instructions, the at least one processor is configured to cause the device to: display a plurality of virtual items having virtual functions respectively in a virtual scene, the plurality of virtual items being individually accessible to a virtual object; and display a target virtual item in the virtual scene in response to a first trigger operation targeting at least two virtual items of the plurality of virtual items, the target virtual item being obtained by assembling the at least two virtual items into one, the target virtual item supporting a new virtual function, and the new virtual function of the target virtual item being different from the virtual function of each of the at least two virtual items alone.
1. A method for displaying a virtual item, performed by an electronic device, the method comprising: displaying a virtual object in a virtual scene, the virtual object having a plurality of virtual items, the plurality of virtual items being equipped by or individually accessible to the virtual object and respectively having virtual functions; and displaying a virtual assembled item in the virtual scene in response to a first trigger operation targeting at least two virtual items of the plurality of virtual items, the virtual assembled item being obtained by combining the at least two virtual items into a target virtual item, the target virtual item supporting a new virtual function, the new virtual function of the target virtual item being different from the virtual function of each of the at least two virtual items alone, and the new virtual function of the target virtual item being realized without switching the target virtual item by the virtual object.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 7, and 10 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Fallout 4.
Regarding claim 1, Fallout 4, hereinafter Fallot, discloses a device and method comprising a memory for storing computer instructions and at least one processor in communication with the memory, wherein, the at least one processor executes the computer instructions, (0:00 – 10:46 of Fallout, wherein fig. 1 below shows an example screenshot of the video game Fallout 4, which is viewed by the Examiner as the video game being played on a video game console, (e.g. Playstation), or a personal computer, which is viewed by the Examiner as being equivalent to a device comprising a memory for storing and executing computer instructions).
Fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
758
1339
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fallout further discloses displaying a plurality of virtual items having virtual functions in a virtual scene, the plurality of virtual items being individually accessible to a virtual object, (3:31 of Fallout, wherein as shown in fig. 2 below, wherein the Examiner views the requirements, “circuitry”, “fiber optics”, “gear”, “screw”, and “spring” as being equivalent to a plurality of virtual items having virtual functions).
Fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
765
1337
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fallout further discloses displaying a target virtual item in the virtual scene in response to a first trigger operation targeting at least two virtual items of the plurality of virtual items, the target virtual item being obtained by assembling the at least two virtual items into one, (3:31 of Fallout, wherein shown in fig. 2 above, the Examiner views the displayed “Gauss Rifle” as being equivalent to a displayed target virtual item, and the requirements, (“circuitry”, “fiber optics”, “gear”, “screw”, and “spring”), needed to create the rifle as being equivalent to at least two virtual items being obtained and assembled into one target virtual item). Fallout further discloses that the target virtual item supporting a new virtual function, and the new virtual function of the target virtual item being different from the virtual function of each of the at least two virtual items alone, (3:31 of Fallout and fig. 2 above, wherein the Examiner views the gun, (Gauss Rifle), being created from the required parts as being equivalent to a new virtual item supporting a new virtual function, wherein a gun has a different function compared to fiber optics and circuitry components).
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Fallout discloses obtain the target virtual item in response to the first trigger operation; and display, in the virtual scene, the virtual object as equipped with the target virtual item, (3:31 and fig. 2, wherein the Examiner views the gun created by a user from the required parts as being equivalent to a displayed virtual object in a virtual scene in response to a trigger operation).
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Fallout discloses transmit a combination instruction for the at least two virtual items to a server; and when the processor is configured to cause the device to display, in the virtual scene, that the virtual object is equipped with the target virtual item, the processor is configured to cause the device to: receive, from the server, a confirmation to the combination instruction; and in response to the confirmation, display, in the virtual scene, that the virtual object is equipped with the target virtual item, (3:31 of Fallout and fig. 2 above, wherein the Examiner views the gun, (Gauss Rifle), being created from the required parts as being equivalent to transmitting a combination instruction of at least two virtual items to create and display a target virtual object in a virtual scene).
Regarding claim 10, Fallout discloses transmitting operation information of the first trigger operation to a server in response to the first trigger operation, the operation information indicating to combine the at least two virtual items; and obtaining the target virtual item issued by the server based on the operation information, and displaying the target virtual item in the virtual scene, (3:31 of Fallout and fig. 2, wherein the Examiner views the created “Gauss Rifle” and the requirements, (“circuitry”, “fiber optics”, “gear”, “screw”, and “spring”), needed to create the rifle as being equivalent to transmitting operation information of the first trigger operation to a server in response to the first trigger operation, the operation information indicating to combine the at least two virtual items; and obtaining the target virtual item).
Regarding claim 11, Fallout discloses playing an item combination animation in response to the first trigger operation, the item combination animation being an animation in which the virtual object combines the at least two virtual items into the target virtual item, (3:31 - 3:38 of Fallout and fig. 2, wherein the Examiner views the displaying of the gun and required parts as being equivalent to item combination animation in response to a first trigger operation).
Regarding claim 12, Fallout discloses wherein the at least two virtual items are shooting items, and after displaying the target virtual item in the virtual scene in response to the first trigger operation targeting the at least two virtual items of the plurality of virtual items, the method further comprises: displaying a first launch function control of the target virtual item in the virtual scene; and in response to a trigger operation on the first launch function control, controlling the virtual object to simultaneously launch projectiles of the at least two virtual items which are assembled in the target virtual item, (3:31- 3:34 of Fallout and fig. 2, wherein the Examiner views the two guns, (Gauss Rifle and Gamma Gun), as being equivalent at least two virtual items being shooting items that have shooting or launch functions).
Regarding claim 13, Fallout discloses wherein the at least two virtual items comprise a shooting item and a throwing item, and after displaying the target virtual item in the virtual scene in response to the first trigger operation targeting the at least two virtual items of the plurality of virtual items, the method further comprises: displaying a second launch function control and a throwing function control of the target virtual item in the virtual scene; in response to a trigger operation on the second launch function control, controlling the virtual object to launch a projectile of the shooting item; and in response to a trigger operation on the throwing function control, controlling the virtual object to throw the throwing item, (1:24 and 3:31 of Fallout, fig. 2 and fig. 3 below, wherein the Examiner views the grenade shown in fig. 3 and the gun shown in fig. 2 as being equivalent to at least virtual items comprising a throwing and shooting item comprising launch and throwing functions).
Fig. 3
PNG
media_image3.png
764
1336
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Fallout discloses wherein the at least two virtual items comprise a shooting item and a cold weapon item, and after displaying the target virtual item in the virtual scene in response to the first trigger operation targeting the at least two virtual items of the plurality of virtual items, the method further comprises: displaying a third launch function control and a confrontation function control of the target virtual item in the virtual scene; in response to a trigger operation on the third launch function control, controlling the virtual object to launch a projectile of the shooting item; and in response to a trigger operation on the confrontation function control, controlling the virtual object to fight using the cold weapon item, (3:43 and 3:31 of Fallout, fig. 4 below and fig. 2 above, wherein the Examiner views the bladed weapon shown in fig. 4 below as being equivalent to a cold weapon item and the gun shown in fig. 2 above as being equivalent to a shooting item, wherein the items disclose a launching and confrontation functions).
Fig. 4
PNG
media_image4.png
762
1340
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Fallout discloses wherein the at least two virtual items comprise a shooting item and a special ammunition, and after displaying the target virtual item in the virtual scene in response to the first trigger operation targeting the at least two virtual items of the plurality of virtual items, the method further comprises: displaying a fourth launch function control and a fifth launch function control of the target virtual item in the virtual scene; in response to a trigger operation on the fourth launch function control, controlling the virtual object to launch a projectile of the shooting item; and in response to a trigger operation on the fifth launch function control, controlling the virtual object to launch the special ammunition by using the shooting item, (3:31- 3:34 of Fallout and fig. 2, wherein the Examiner views the two guns, (Gauss Rifle and Gamma Gun), as being equivalent at least two virtual items being shooting items, with the Gamma Gun comprising special ammunition).
Regarding claim 19, Fallout discloses wherein each of the plurality of virtual items has a corresponding interaction function, the corresponding interaction function being utilized by the virtual object to interact with another virtual object in the virtual scene; and the target virtual item has a new interaction function different from interaction functions of the at least two virtual items, (3:31 of Fallout and fig. 2 above, wherein the Examiner views the “Gauss Rifle” as being equivalent to a target virtual item comprising a new interaction function that is different from the interaction functions of at least two virtual such as the requirements, (“circuitry”, “fiber optics”, “gear”, “screw”, and “spring”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 16 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallout 4.
Regarding claim 16, Fallout, as stated above, discloses combining at least two virtual items to create one virtual item, (3:31 of Fallout, wherein shown in fig. 2 above, the Examiner views the displayed “Gauss Rifle” as being equivalent to a displayed target virtual item, and the requirements, (“circuitry”, “fiber optics”, “gear”, “screw”, and “spring”), needed to create the rifle as being equivalent to at least two virtual items being obtained and assembled into one target virtual item), however, Fallout is silent upon disclosing separating the one virtual item to obtain the at least two virtual items. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to separate the one virtual item to obtain the two virtual items after combining the parts to make one virtual item, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167). It has also been held that making parts separable involves only routine skill in the art. (In reDulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Regarding claim 17, Fallout, as stated above, discloses combining at least two virtual items to create one virtual item, but is silent upon disclosing separating the one virtual item to obtain the at least two virtual items. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to separate the one virtual item to obtain the two virtual items, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167). It has also been held that making parts separable involves only routine skill in the art. (In reDulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Regarding claim 18, Fallout, as stated above, discloses an animation in response to combining virtual, however, as stated above, Fallout is silent upon disclosing separating the one virtual item to obtain the at least two virtual items. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to separate the one virtual item to obtain the two virtual items, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167). It has also been held that making parts separable involves only routine skill in the art. (In reDulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Claims 4, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallout 4 as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Voss (U.S. 2016/0283097).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Fallout discloses displaying a plurality of virtual items, (3:31 of Fallout, wherein as shown in fig. 2 below, wherein the Examiner views the requirements, “circuitry”, “fiber optics”, “gear”, “screw”, and “spring” as being equivalent to a plurality of virtual items), however, Fallout is silent on disclosing displaying the plurality of virtual items in response to a pinch operation. In a related art, Voss discloses an electronic device (“the depicted mobile electronic device”, par. 0025), that displays a plurality of items, (“Each item, image or video, is displayed as at thumbnail, with a caption, a duration, and a possible group count, par. 0051), wherein Voss teaches that the electronic device may be implemented on a video game system, (“the depicted mobile electronic device is a mobile phone 100, the invention may equally be implemented on any number of devices, such as music players, cameras, tablets, global positioning navigation systems etc. A mobile phone typically includes the ability to send and receive phone calls and text messages, interface with the Internet either through the cellular network or a local wireless network, take pictures and videos, play back audio and video content, and run applications such as word processing, programs, or video games”, par. 0025), wherein Voss further discloses displaying items in response to a pinch operation, (“Pinching items together combines all items”, par. 0055), wherein this is viewed in combination with Fallout as meeting the claim limitation of display the target virtual item in the virtual scene in response to a pinch operation on the display controls of the at least two virtual items.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the pinch operation teachings of Voss into the art disclosed by Fallout in order to provide better gaming control and customization by mimicking real-world handling of physical objects.
Regarding claim 8, Fallout discloses combining at least virtual items together to create a single virtual item, (3:31 of Fallout, wherein shown in fig. 2 above, the Examiner views the displayed “Gauss Rifle” as being equivalent to a displayed target virtual item, and the requirements, (“circuitry”, “fiber optics”, “gear”, “screw”, and “spring”), needed to create the rifle as being equivalent to at least two virtual items being obtained and assembled into one target virtual item), however, Fallout is silent upon disclosing a drag operation. In a related art, Voss as cited above, discloses Voss discloses an electronic device, wherein Voss teaches that the electronic device may be implemented on a video game system, (“the depicted mobile electronic device is a mobile phone 100, the invention may equally be implemented on any number of devices, such as music players, cameras, tablets, global positioning navigation systems etc. A mobile phone typically includes the ability to send and receive phone calls and text messages, interface with the Internet either through the cellular network or a local wireless network, take pictures and videos, play back audio and video content, and run applications such as word processing, programs, or video games”, par. 0025), wherein Voss further discloses a drag operation on at least two items, (“Dragging and dropping items onto other items may be used to combine the items into a group”, par. 0055), wherein the Examiner views this in combination with Fallout as being equivalent to the claim limitation of a drag operation on the at least two virtual items of the plurality of virtual items making the at least two virtual items being in contact with each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made combine the drag operation teachings of Voss into the art disclosed by Fallout in order to provide more natural and responsive feel to the game allowing players to move items smoothly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/E.M.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights