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 office action is in response to the application filed on 03/19/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 15 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “a second stream,” should read “a second live stream.”
In claim 1, “the third content instance,” should read “a third content instance.”
In claim 6, “each of the each of the,” should read “each of the.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 2, 12 and 15 is/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.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 recites the limitation(s) “the first instance” and “the second instance”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Independent claim(s) 1 and 11 introduces “a first content instance” and “a first instance of a cloud-based application,” with corresponding “a second content instance” and “a second instance of a cloud-based application”. The claims never recite and/or introduce solely “first instance” and “second instance”. For the purposes of examination, claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are read as “the first content instance” and “the second content instance”.
Claim 15 recites “The method of claim 14”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The preamble recites a method, but there is no method in claim 14. Claim 15 references more than one statutory class, a system (e.g., product) and a method (e.g., process), which renders the scope of the subject matter indefinite. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (see MPEP 2173.05(p)). For the purposes of examination, claim 15 is read as “the system of claim 14,”.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention us directed to an abstract idea without significantly more
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are directed to a method and system, respectively, which is/are one of the statutory categories of invention.
[STEP2A PRONG 1] The claims recite limitations which have been construed as certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes. Claim(s) 1 recites a method and claim(s) 11 recites a system for performing the method including organizing and presenting a spectated gameplay match and controlling access to it, receiving stream data from a first client’s device and a second client’s device engaged in a common gameplay session, generating a content event from the streams and providing the event to a third client. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited steps establish organizing, conducting and determining who is allowed to view a competitive game and/or match for an audience. The recited steps therefore include certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., managing the interactions among players and spectators) and/or mental process (e.g., validating an identifier against a list of authorized users, observing and evaluating a score against a threshold). Courts have recognized that rules for playing games constitute an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Organizing a match, checking a spectator and/or audience member’s identifier, keeping track of scores and recognizing significant moments in a game/match is a longstanding human activity that could be done by pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite abstract ideas.
[STEP2A PRONG II] The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to a technological improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The additional elements such as the “client devices,” “cloud-based application,” “memory,” “data processor,” under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are generic components that perform routine, and well-understood functions such as receiving data, transmitting data, executing an application, and storing data in memory (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The additional limitations merely add instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and/or link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
[STEP2B] The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements such as the client devices, cloud-based application, memory, and data processor, are under their broadest reasonable interpretation, conventional tools for implementing the abstract idea. The specification discloses that these elements are generic and conventional (Par(s). [00129]-[00131]; “These various aspects or features can include implementation in one or more computer programs that are executable and/or interpretable on a programmable system including at least one programmable processor, which can be special or general purpose, coupled to receive data and instructions from, and to transmit data and instructions to, a storage system, at least one input device, and at least one output device. The programmable system or computing system may include clients and servers.”). The recitation of these additional elements does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception but rather link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, claims 1-20 are found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim(s) 2-10, and 11-20 is/are dependent on supra claim(s) and include all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites no additional limitations. For example, claim(s) 2 and 12 further recite scheduling a match at a scheduled time (e.g., organizing the event). Claim(s) 3 and 13 further recite transmitting one of the streams. Claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 recite determining and transmitting a score, and claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 further recite dividing the streams into segments, storing and deleting them, and tracking and identifying segments where a score meets a threshold.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at 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. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Wiggeshoff (US20220203228A1).
In regard to claim(s) 1 and 11, Wiggeshoff teaches a method and a system to perform said method (Abstract, a method is provided, performed by at least one server computer, for providing spectating of gameplay of a video game) comprising: receiving, from a first client device, data characterizing a first live stream of digital content representing a first content instance operating as part of a first instance of a cloud-based application, the first instance of the cloud-based application executing within an environment specific to the first client device (Wiggeshoff, Par. [0053]; “In the illustrated implementation, game streams are generated from game sessions occurring in various ways. One example is through cloud gaming, in which cloud gaming client devices 112 stream gameplay from a cloud gaming system 114, with the cloud gaming system 114 performing the execution of the video game sessions and serving gameplay video in real-time to the cloud gaming client devices 112.”).
receiving, from a second client device, data characterizing a second stream of digital content representing a second content instance operating as part of a second instance of the cloud-based application, the second instance of the cloud-based application executing within an environment specific to the second client device, wherein the first content instance executing on the first client device and the second content instance executing on a second client device include a common gameplay session (Par. [0082]; “In some implementations, the system is configured to automatically select from among different players that are involved in gameplay of the same multiplayer session. For example, in the illustrated implementation, the players 502, 504, 506, and 508 are all engaged in multiplayer gameplay of the same game session, in the virtual environment 500 as shown. Each of the players 502, 504, 506, and 508 has a corresponding game stream 510, 512, 514, and 516, respectively.”).
generating a content event based on the common gameplay session, the content event including at least the first live stream of digital content and the second live stream of digital content (Par. [0071]; “With continued reference to the implementation of FIG. 3, several game views 312, 314, 316, and 318 are included in the interface 300. The game views are configured to present views of recommended game streams… In some implementations, a game view takes the form of a recent image or representative image of a game stream. Whereas in some implementations, the game view provides a live view of the game stream, thereby providing an actual spectator view, but in miniaturized form so as to accommodate multiple game views in the interface 300.”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the interface presenting several game views of multiple player streams of a common game session reads on content event including both the first and second live stream/s.
receiving, from a third client device, data characterizing a request to access the content event and an identifier from a third instance of the cloud-based application (Abstract, “responsive to receiving, over the network from the client device, a selection of one of the recommended game streams, then providing, over the network to the client device, the selected game stream for spectating by the user”).
determining, based on the received data from the third content instance, permission to access the content event by at least validating the identifier (Par. [0144]; “In some embodiments, the cloud gaming site may also validate the identified user in order to determine all the games the user is authorized to view/play.”).
and transmitting, in response to determining permission to access the content event, data characterizing the content event to the third instance for output on a display communicatively coupled to the third client device (Par. [0051]; “In the illustrated implementation, a spectator device 102 communicates over a network 104 (e.g. the Internet) with a spectating system 100. Broadly speaking, the spectator device 102 is operated by a spectator to receive recommendations from the spectator system 100 and receive specific game streams to spectate through the spectator device 102. By way of example without limitation, the spectator device 102 can be a computer, laptop, game console, tablet, cellular phone, or any other type of computing device capable of receiving and rendering to a display a view of a video game session for spectating purposes. In some implementations, the spectator device 102 includes a display, whereas in other implementations the spectator device 102 renders video/images to a separate display device.”).
Claim 11 recites the same limitations as claim 1, performed in a system. Wiggeshoff teaches a system for performing the recited methods with respect to claim 1 (Abstract), (Par. [0050]; “FIG. 1 conceptually illustrates a system for providing game stream recommendations to a spectator, in accordance with implementations of the disclosure.”). Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
In regard to claim(s) 3 and 13, Wiggeshoff further teaches the method of claim 1 and system of claim 11, wherein transmitting data characterizing the content event to the third instance further comprises transmitting data characterizing the first live stream of digital content or data characterizing the second live stream of digital content to the third instance for output on the display (Par. [0082]; “In some implementations, the system is configured to evaluate which of the player game streams is currently optimal for the spectator, and automatically switch between different player game streams depending upon which game stream is currently determined to be most interesting for the spectator (e.g. based on recognized/predicted gameplay activity in the game streams and the user's preferences). Hence, the system monitors different players in the multi-player session and selects the player whose game stream is determined to be optimal for the spectator, thereby providing different views that can provide variety to the spectator's viewing experience even within a single multi-player session.”).
In regard to claim(s) 6 and 16, Wiggeshoff teaches the method of claim 1 and system of claim 11, wherein transmitting data characterizing the content event to the third instance further comprises: partitioning at least the first live stream of the digital content into a plurality of segments, each of the each of the plurality of segments corresponding to a predefined timeframe; storing the one or more of the plurality of segments locally in memory; and transmitting the one or more of the plurality of segments of the first live stream of digital content to the third instance for output on the display (Par. [0091]; “Extending the concept, in some implementations, gameplay is buffered to a certain extent and this expands the scope of possible scenes that the system may consider to automatically select for spectating at a given time. That is, the user may be directed to spectate a live or buffered scene depending upon which is determined to be suitable for the user according to the user's preferences as previously described. For example, the user may be directed to spectate any scene initiating within the past N number of seconds/minutes that is determined to sufficiently or most closely match the user's spectating preferences.”).
In regard to claim(s) 9 and 19, Wiggeshoff teaches the method of claim 1 and system of claim11, wherein: the first content instance corresponds to a first digital game instance operating as part of the first instance of the cloud-based application; the second content instance corresponds to a second digital game instance operating as part of the second instance of the cloud-based application; wherein the first digital game instance and the second digital game instance include the common gameplay session (Par. [0082]; “In some implementations, the system is configured to automatically select from among different players that are involved in gameplay of the same multiplayer session. For example, in the illustrated implementation, the players 502, 504, 506, and 508 are all engaged in multiplayer gameplay of the same game session, in the virtual environment 500 as shown. Each of the players 502, 504, 506, and 508 has a corresponding game stream 510, 512, 514, and 516, respectively.”); and the third content instance corresponds to an interactive graphical interface operating as part of the third instance of the cloud-based application (Par. [0071]; “With continued reference to the implementation of FIG. 3, several game views 312, 314, 316, and 318 are included in the interface 300. The game views are configured to present views of recommended game streams… In some implementations, a game view takes the form of a recent image or representative image of a game stream. Whereas in some implementations, the game view provides a live view of the game stream, thereby providing an actual spectator view, but in miniaturized form so as to accommodate multiple game views in the interface 300.”).
In regard to claim(s) 10 and 20, Wiggeshoff teaches the method of claim 9 and system of claim 19, wherein the interactive graphical interface further comprises a live chat (Par. [0096]; “In the illustrated implementation, a comments stream 707 lists comments from spectators as the gameplay occurs, and the user is able to enter text comments that will appear in the comments stream 707, such as via a text input box, voice-to-text translation, etc.”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiggeshoff (US20220203228A1) in view of Hunter (US11759707B2).
In regard to claim(s) 2 and 12, Wiggeshoff teaches the method of claim 1 and system of claim 11 but does not teach generating the content event based on the common gameplay session further comprises: scheduling a match associated with the content event at a scheduled time, the match including the first content instance and the second content instance.
However, Hunter teaches a multi-player match scheduled at a future time including both players’ instances (Col. 3, lines 13-16; “The embodiments described herein enable the user to bring together a group of players for game play at any scheduled time, so that when the user and the players access the game for game play, they are directly “dropped-in” to a stream of game play of the game.”)
Hunter further teaches assigning, at the scheduled time, the first instance to the first instance of the cloud-based application and the second instance to the second instance of the cloud-based application (Col. 2, lines 38-40; “the cloud gaming system pre-loads the game in advance so as to make the game available for game play at the scheduled time.”) and (“pre-loading an instance of the video game on one or more servers of the data center identified for said player, before the scheduled time”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hunter’s technique of scheduling a multi-player match at a scheduled time and pre-loading each player’s game instance in advance into Wiggeshoff’s cloud application system in order to assign the first and second content instances to the respective instances of the cloud application for the common gameplay session. Hunter supplies the motivation, disclosing that preloading the game in advance makes it available for game play at the scheduled time so that players are directly dropped-in to the gameplay without any delays (Hunter, Col. 3, lines 17-20; “Dropping-in, as used in this application, refers to the user and the players having access to game play of the game from a point where the game is to be started, making it appear as though the user and the players never left the game.”). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hunter and Wiggeshoff because both references are directed to the field of cloud application(s) hosting multi-player gaming; the combination would yield predictable results of a coordinated scheduled match.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiggeshoff (US20220203228A1) in view of April et al. (US20210160584A1), hereinafter April.
In regard to claim(s) 4 and 14, Wiggeshoff teaches the method of claim 1 and system of claim 11, but does not explicitly teach wherein transmitting data characterizing the content event to the third instance further comprises: determining, in real-time, a score associated with the content event; and transmitting the score to the third instance for output on the display
However, April teaches a real time score is transmitted to the viewer’s display ( Par. [0035]; “The system further comprises: C) at least one socket server (600) communicatively coupled to the control server to: receive from the control server at least the first score information; and transmit the first score information (504A) to at least the first viewer client device (200A)”). April discloses that the event content is not limited to just sports game/s (April, Par. [0010]; “Examples of various activities constituting events according to the present disclosure include, but are not limited to…game-related activities (e.g., online gaming)”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate April’s real time transmission of a live score to the viewer display into Wiggeshoff’s cloud-gaming spectating system because Wiggeshoff discloses generating and analyzing a score and gameplay metadata (Wiggeshoff, Par. [0025], [0031]; “In some implementations, using the machine learning model to analyze the interactive gameplay includes analyzing one or more of points scored or player progress.”) and (Par. [0055]; “Broadly speaking, the game streams generated by the various game sessions include gameplay video, and may further include gameplay metadata that is generated from the execution of the game sessions. The gameplay metadata includes any type of data indicative of activity occurring in a given game session, such as…points, goals, scores, etc.”), the combination would allow for the score of the viewed event to be determined in real time and transmitted to the third client. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would produce a more informative live broadcast of the event content.
In regard to claim(s) 5 and 15, April further teaches the method of claim 4 and system of claim 14, wherein the determining the score and transmitting the score is performed continuously for the duration of the content event ( “In such implementations relating to video-based commentary about events, the inventive systems, apparatus and methods disclosed herein further may facilitate display, on respective client devices …For example, in connection with sports games, displayed event information may include, but is not limited to…score information (e.g., with essentially real-time score updates synchronized with the video-based commentary)”) and (Par. [0035]; “The system further comprises: B) a control server (500) to periodically retrieve, via the Internet and from an event information provider (55), first event information (502A) germane to a first live sporting event, wherein the first event information includes first score information (504A) for the first live sporting event. The system further comprises: C) at least one socket server (600) communicatively coupled to the control server to: receive from the control server at least the first score information; and transmit the first score information (504A) to at least the first viewer client device (200A)”).
The rationale to combine Wiggeshoff and April as set forth above with respect to claim 4 is applied here, with the addition of April supplying the steps of determining and transmitting continuously for the duration of the event. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would produce a more informative live broadcast of the event content.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiggeshoff (US20220203228A1) in view of April (US20210160584A1), and further in view of Miura et al., (US10016677B2) hereinafter Miura.
In regard to claim(s) 7 and 17, Wiggeshoff teaches the method of claim 6 and system of claim 16 but does not teach deleting the one or more of the plurality of segments from memory after the content event has concluded.
However, Miura teaches deleting buffered segments after the gameplay event has concluded (Col. 30, lines 43-46; “Optionally, portions of the gameplay not retrieved from the buffer or portions of the gameplay outside a particular gaming interval (e.g., a particular duration, level, chapter, course, etc.) can be removed from the buffer.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Miura’s technique of deleting buffered stream segments after the content event has concluded into the stored streamed game segments of Wiggeshoff (Wiggeshoff, Par. [0040], [0085]; “FIG. 6 conceptually illustrates insertion of pre-recorded gameplay between segments of live spectating, in accordance with implementations of the disclosure.”) and (Par. [0090]; “At a later time T3, the user is switched to spectate a scene S3 which occurs live. Thus, in the illustrated implementation, the pre-recorded scene is inserted between live spectating segments, enabling the user to enjoy interesting content even when such content is not actively occurring in a live sense, with the system automatically switching between live and pre-recorded content as needed.”). Similarly, April discloses that deleting cached stream segments after use is routine in this field (April, Par. [0184]; “Once the viewer client device has downloaded all chunks pointed to in the chunklist, it plays them in turn, deletes the current copy of the chunklist that the viewer client device has cached”). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results of reducing memory overload by removing segments no longer needed once the event/s ended.
In regard to claim(s) 8 and 18, Wiggeshoff teaches the method of claim 6 and system of claim 16, but does not explicitly teach wherein partitioning at least the first live stream of the digital content into a plurality of segments further comprises: determining a variation in a score in the content event that satisfies a threshold; and identifying one or more of the plurality of segments of the first live stream of digital content that corresponds to the variation in the score that satisfies the threshold.
However, Miura teaches identifying segments by a score variation that crosses a threshold (e.g., high score moments) (Col. 31, lines 36-55; “For example the first portion of the gameplay may be buffered to include a statistical anomaly, such as a high score being reached, the gathering of a large number of points in a short amount of time, …the game console can track global high scores for a particular game, and buffer gameplay in which a user approaches and surpasses that high score.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Miura’s technique of identifying stream segments based on a score variation that satisfies a threshold to Wiggeshoff’s spectating system that operates on the score and gameplay metadata that Wiggeshoff already tracks and analyzes (Wiggeshoff, Par. [0025], [0031]; “In some implementations, using the machine learning model to analyze the interactive gameplay includes analyzing one or more of points scored or player progress.”) and (Par. [0055]; “Broadly speaking, the game streams generated by the various game sessions include gameplay video, and may further include gameplay metadata that is generated from the execution of the game sessions. The gameplay metadata includes any type of data indicative of activity occurring in a given game session, such as…points, goals, scores, etc.”) because the combination would identify the segments corresponding to that score variation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would have enabled automatic capture of key scoring moments as highlights from data already monitored by the system.
Conclusion
Accordingly claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BUSHIRA MUSA whose telephone number is (571)272-9156. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Kang Hu can be reached at 5712701344. 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.
/B.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
