DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 9-10 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Luby et al. (U.S. 2011/0231569), hereinafter Luby.
In regard to claim 1, Luby teaches: a method comprising:
determining, based on a grouping characteristic associated with a data stream comprising a plurality of group of pictures, an expected duration, (See Luby, Pars. 0147, 0201 and Fig. 6.: identifying two or more grouping characteristics associated with the data stream; determining, based on the two or more identified grouping characteristics, two or more expected durations; - The concept of grouping characteristics is implied in Luby, Pars. 0131, 0149 and 0198; the concept of expected durations is suggested in Pars. 0141, 0191 – 0193, and 0268 - 0271: start time or presentation time expressed as deltas relative to a reference time; duration between seek points or RAPs (random access points); - (compare with disclosure in instant Application at Pars. 0040 – 0042: grouping can indicate, among other things, the start and/or end boundaries of a program, or other logical grouping of pictures)) wherein each group of pictures of the plurality of groups of pictures comprises a first frame, that corresponds to an initial boundary of the respective group of pictures, and a plurality of successive frames (Luby [0131], [0191], [0200]-[0201] and fig. 6);
and encoding, into the data stream based on the expected duration, information indicative of an initial boundary of a content fragment (See Luby, Pars. 0077, 0081, 0095, and 0096: encoding operations; See further Pars. 0131, 0193, 0212, 0213 and 0214: i.e., encoding, into the data stream, information representing a first boundary of a first content fragment, wherein a request for content associated with the first of the two or more expected durations returns the first content fragment and information representing a second boundary of a second content fragment, wherein a request for content associated with the second of the two or more expected durations returns the second content fragment) comprising one or more groups of pictures of the plurality of groups of pictures (Luby [0201] and [0131]), wherein the initial boundary of the content fragment comprises a successive frame of a group of pictures of the plurality of groups of pictures that is independent of each initial boundary of each group of pictures of the plurality of groups of pictures; (See Luby, Pars. 0200-0201, 0211, fig. 6, 0121, 0125; Pars. 0131, 0136, and 0142; Pars. 0145 and 0147: determining, based on a first of the two or more expected durations, a first boundary of a first content fragment, wherein the first boundary is independent of the respective boundary of each of the plurality of groups of pictures)
In regard to claim 2, Luby discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the grouping characteristic comprises determining one or more of a group identification, a group number, or a group pattern. (See Luby, Pars. 0256 – 0258: TrackID for grouping of tracks; See also Luby in: determining, based on a grouping characteristic associated with the data stream, an expected duration (Luby, pars. 0147, 0201 and fig. 6.))
In regard to claim 9, Luby discloses the method of claim 1, wherein encoding the information comprises encoding the information in a private data field of the data stream. (Luby [0232])
In regard to claim 10, Luby discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising determining, based on the expected duration, the initial boundary of a content fragment as described in the subsequent limitations of the claim. (Luby, Pars. 0147, 0201 and fig. 6. : determining, based on the two or more identified grouping characteristics, two or more expected durations, i.e., determining, based on a first of the two or more expected durations, a first boundary of a first content fragment, wherein the first boundary is independent of the respective boundary of each of the plurality of groups of pictures, (See Luby, Pars. 0121, 0124, 0125, 0131, 0136, 0141, 0142, 0145 and 0147; determining, based on a second of the two or more expected durations, a second boundary of a second content fragment, wherein the second boundary is independent of the respective boundary of each of the plurality of groups of pictures, (See Luby, Pars. 0147, 0148, 0153, 0154 and 0269))
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 3-8 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Luby in view of Prakash et al. (US 2003/0128759), hereinafter Prakash.
In regard to claim 3, Luby teaches: the method of claim 1, but is not specific about the additional limitation to Claim 1 to make up Claim 3, but which is disclosed by Parkash in the teaching of a method of data conditioning including encoding, into the data stream, information indicative of the boundary of the content fragment, wherein the information is further indicative of a group flag associated with an existence of the grouping characteristic. (See Prakash, Par. 0066, lines 8, 9: “flag in the compressed video data associated with the frame”; See also Par. 0088)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Luby with the missing limitations of Prakash to devise a method for data stream fragmentation. The motivation would be to execute the method of receiving and encoding a data stream such that a received data stream content comprises a plurality of groups of pictures each comprising a respective plurality of successive frames, and with defined respective boundaries.
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
In regard to claim 4, the combination of Luby and Prakash teaches: the method of claim 3, wherein the group flag indicates one or more of a beginning of a program or an end of a program. (See Prakash, Par. 0087: “... encoder might also perform steps such as adding header information, such as at the beginning of a sequence or the end of a sequence”)
The same motivation and analysis for claim 3 applies to claim 4.
In regard to claim 5, the combination of Luby and Prakash teaches: the method of claim 3, wherein the group flag indicates a streaming technology to use for processing content fragments associated with the group flag. (Par. 0021 of instant Application discloses several conventional adaptive streaming technologies: e.g., Microsoft Smooth Streaming (“Smooth”); Adobe: Flash Dynamic Streaming (“Flash”), and Apple: HTTP Adaptive Bitrate Streaming (“Apple”). Luby teaches streaming technology as block-request streaming system at Pars. 0062 – 0069: streaming technology such as HTTP; See further Prakash, Par. 0066 and Par. 0087 as cited above for rejection of claims 2 and 3; - Claim 5 is thus rejected on similar ground as claim 3 in relation to claim 2).
The same motivation and analysis for claim 3 applies to claim 5.
In regard to claim 6, the combination of Luby and Prakash teaches: the method of claim 3, wherein the group flag indicates at least one of a start boundary of an associated group of content fragments or an end boundary of an associated group of content fragments. (See Prakash, Par. 0067: information on boundary; See also Par. 0087: “... encoder might also perform steps such as adding header information, such as at the beginning of a sequence or the end of a sequence”; - See also rationale used for rejection of Claim 1 and Claim 2: concept of expected durations (which relates to boundaries) as suggested in Pars. 0141, 0191 – 0193, and 0268 - 0271: start time or presentation time expressed as deltas relative to a reference time; duration between seek points or RAPs (random access points); - (compare with disclosure in instant Application at Pars. 0040 – 0042: grouping can indicate, among other things, the start and/or end boundaries of a program, or other logical grouping of pictures))).
The same motivation and analysis for claim 3 applies to claim 6.
In regard to claim 7, the combination of Luby and Prakash teaches: the method of claim 1, wherein the data stream comprises a transport stream, (See Luby, Par. 0081: transport protocols, such as TCP; Par. 0138: real time transport protocol (RTP) packets achieved through real time transport control protocol RTCP; See Prakash, Par. 0043: “...System 10 accepts video data from any number of sources, encodes it using encoder 100 such that the video data is compressed for transport or...;”) and wherein encoding the information comprises encoding the information in a transport header of the transport stream. (See Luby, Par. 0253: segment formats, especially those for which segments contain the moov header; Par. 0275: header information for segment; Par. 0335: signaling of changes to the media presentation description; moov headers or the end of presentation may be contained in a streaming information box; See Prakash, Par. 0043: “...System 10 accepts video data from any number of sources, encodes it using encoder 100 such that the video data is compressed for transport...;” Par. 0061, lines 4 -10: information on headers; See also Par. 0087, lines 4 – 7; - See also rationale used for rejection of Claim 1 from which Claim 7 depends).
The same motivation and analysis for claim 3 applies to claim 7.
In regard to claim 8, the combination of Luby and Prakash teaches: the method of claim 7, wherein encoding the information in the transport header of the transport stream comprises encoding the information in an adaptation field of the transport header of the transport stream. (See previous citations in claim 7 on transport header: Par. 0043, 0061 and 0087; - (based on its dependency on claim 7, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons evoked in claim 7); - Further, Luby teaches data stream comprising a transport stream, (See Luby, Par. 0066: HTTP streaming may include bit-rate adaptation, fast startup and seek; Par. 0081: transport protocols, such as TCP; Par. 0138: real time transport protocol (RTP) packets achieved through real time transport control protocol RTCP)
The same motivation and analysis for claim 3 applies to claim 8.
Claim 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Luby in view of Taniguchi (US 2003/0093810).
In regard to claim 11, Luby teaches: the method of claim 1, but not the additional limitation to Claim 1 to make up Claim 11.
However, Taniguchi teaches the additional limitation of a method, further comprising encoding, in the data stream, a universal time stamp indicative of a time that the information is encoded in the data stream. (See Taniguchi, Par. 0011: “... encoding process on video data being inputted as stream data, repeating to start and end an encoding process at a predetermined time interval and carrying out a data dividing process to generate a plurality time-continuous of video data”; Par. 0042: process to divide video data simply based on a reference unit time or "scene division"; Par. 0043: video-recording start/end time; Par. 0085: time of date/hour of recording end).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Luby with the missing limitations of Taniguchi to devise a method for data stream fragmentation. The motivation would be to execute the method of receiving and encoding a data stream such that a received data stream content comprises a plurality of groups of pictures each comprising a respective plurality of successive frames, and with defined respective boundaries and wherein the boundary of the content fragment is independent of each boundary of each group of pictures of the plurality of groups of pictures.
Claim 12, 17-21, 24 and 27 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Luby et al. (US 20110231569 A1), hereinafter “Luby,” in view of Sullivan et al. (US 20070061490 A1), hereinafter “Sullivan.”
In regard to claim 12, Luby discloses a method comprising:
encoding, into a data stream, one or more grouping characteristics of the data stream, wherein the data stream comprises a plurality of groups of pictures, wherein each group of pictures of the plurality of groups of pictures comprises a first frame, that corresponds to an initial boundary of the respective group of pictures, and a plurality of successive frames (see claim 1 citations); and
encoding, into the data stream, a boundary flag of a content fragment (Luby [0166], [0200] and [0205]) comprising one or more groups of pictures of the plurality of groups of pictures (Luby [0201] and [0131]), wherein the boundary flag of the content fragment indicates an initial boundary of the content fragment that comprises a successive frame of a group of pictures of the plurality of groups of pictures that is independent of each initial boundary of each group of pictures of the plurality of groups of pictures (see claim 1 citations).
Luby does not explicitly disclose encoding, into a data stream based on transcoding information associated with the data stream, one or more grouping characteristics of the data stream.
However, Sullivan teaches encoding, into a data stream based on transcoding information associated with the data stream, one or more grouping characteristics of the data stream (See Sullivan, Pars. 0004, 0005 and 0026 - 0033; See also Luby as cited for above rejection of Claim 1, in regard to grouping characteristics of the data stream; - (encoders can comprise a device such as a transcoder that conditions streaming data and/or changes data from one format to another for transcoding data)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Luby with the missing limitations of Sullivan regarding data transcoding of multimedia content to the enhanced block-request streaming for improved client-side handling as taught by Luby.
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
In regard to claim 17, Luby in view of Sullivan teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the one or more grouping characteristics of the data stream comprises one or more of a group identification, a group number, or a group pattern. (See Luby, Pars. 0256 – 0258: TrackID for grouping of tracks; See also Luby in: determining, based on a grouping characteristic associated with the data stream, an expected duration (Luby, pars. 0147, 0201 and fig. 6.))
In regard to claim 18, Luby in view of Sullivan teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the one or more grouping characteristics allow a downstream device to retrieve the content fragment based upon the one or more grouping characteristics. (Luby [0256]-0258] and [0226]-[0227])
In regard to claim 19, Luby in view of Sullivan teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising: receiving the data stream. (See Luby, Pars. 0062, 0064 and 0065: streaming system to move media)
In regard to claim 20, Luby in view of Sullivan teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising determining, based on transcoding information associated with the data stream, one or more grouping characteristics of the data stream. (See Sullivan, Pars. 0004, 0005 and 0026 - 0033; See also Luby as cited for above rejection of Claim 1, in regard to grouping characteristics of the data stream; - (encoders can comprise a device such as a transcoder that conditions streaming data and/or changes data from one format to another for transcoding data)).
The same motivation for claim 12 applies to claim 20.
In regard to claim 21, Luby in view of Sullivan teaches a method comprising: determining, based on transcoding information associated with a data stream, one or more grouping characteristics of the data stream, wherein the data stream comprises a plurality of groups of pictures, wherein each group of pictures of the plurality of groups of pictures comprises a first frame, that corresponds to an initial boundary of the respective group of pictures, and a plurality of successive frames; determining, based on the one or more grouping characteristics of the data stream, an expected duration; and encoding, into the data stream based on the expected duration, a boundary flag of a content fragment comprising one or more groups of pictures of the plurality of groups of pictures, wherein the boundary flag of the content fragment comprises information indicative of an initial boundary of the content fragment that comprises a successive frame of a group of pictures of the plurality of groups of pictures that that is independent of each initial boundary of each group of pictures of the plurality of groups of pictures. (Rationale applied to claims 1 and 12 define all the limitations of claim 21)
In regard to claim 24, Luby in view of Sullivan teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the one or more grouping characteristics comprise one or more of a group identification, a group number, or a group pattern. (Rationale applied to claims 2 and 17 defines also all the limitations of claim 24)
In regard to claim 27, Luby in view of Sullivan teaches discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising determining, based on the expected duration, the initial boundary of the content fragment. (Rationale applied to claims 1, 10 and 21 defines also all the limitations of claim 27)
Claim 13-16 and 22-26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Luby in view of Sullivan as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Prakash.
In regard to claim 13, the combination of Luby, Sullivan and Prakash teaches: the method of claim 12, wherein the transcoding information identifies a particular streaming technology. (See Prakash, Par. 0066 and 0088; - See along rationale for rejection of Claim 5 in regard to streaming technology; - (Sullivan suggests similar features, when combined with Luby (See Sullivan, Pars. 0004, 0005 and 0026 - 0033; See also Luby as cited for above rejection of Claim 1, in regard to grouping characteristics of the data stream; - (encoders can comprise a device such as a transcoder that conditions streaming data and/or changes data from one format to another for transcoding data))
The same motivation for claims 3 and 12 applies to claim 13.
In regard to claim 14, the combination of Luby, Sullivan and Prakash teaches the method of claim 13, wherein determining the one or more grouping characteristics of the data stream comprises determining, based on the particular streaming technology identified in the transcoding information, (See Prakash, Par. 0066 and 0088; - See along rationale for rejection of Claim 5) the one or more grouping characteristics of the data stream. (See rationales applied to rejection of claims 1 and 2: notions of “expected durations” in conjunction with “grouping characteristics” and “boundary” of “content fragment” of “group of pictures structure.”; - (i.e., identifying one or more grouping characteristics associated with the data stream; determining one or more expected durations based on the one or more identified grouping characteristics))
The same motivation for claims 3 and 12 applies to claim 13.
In regard to claim 15, the combination of Luby, Sullivan and Prakash teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the data stream comprises a transport stream, (See previous citations in claim 7 on transport header: Prakash, Par. 0043, 0061 and 0087, further, see claim objection above) and wherein encoding the boundary flag comprises encoding the boundary flag in a transport header of the transport stream. (See previous citations in claim 7 on transport header: Prakash, Par. 0043, 0061 and 0087) and encoding, into the data stream, data indicative of the one or more grouping characteristics. (See again rationale applied to rejection of Claim 1 as analyzed above on the basis of Luby (as cited above) and Prakash, Par. 0032)
The same motivation for claims 3 and 12 applies to claim 15.
In regard to claim 16, the combination of Luby, Sullivan and Prakash teaches the method of claim 15, wherein encoding the boundary flag comprises encoding the boundary flag in an adaptation field of the transport header of the transport stream. (See previous citations in claim 7 on transport header: Prakash, Par. 0043, 0061 and 0087; - (based on its dependency on claim 15, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons evoked in claim 15); - i.e., encoding the information in the transport header of the transport stream comprises encoding the information in an adaptation field of the transport header of the transport stream)
The same motivation for claims 3 and 12 applies to claim 16.
In regard to claim 22, the combination of Luby, Sullivan and Prakash teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the transcoding information identifies a particular streaming technology. (Rationale applied to claims 13 and 14 defines all the limitations of claim 22)
In regard to claim 23, the combination of Luby, Sullivan and Prakash teaches the method of claim 22, wherein determining, based on the transcoding information associated with the data stream, the one or more grouping characteristics of the data stream comprises determining, based on the particular streaming technology identified in the transcoding information, the one or more grouping characteristics of the data stream. (Rationale applied to claims 13 and 14 defines also all the limitations of claim 23)
In regard to claim 25, the combination of Luby, Sullivan and Prakash teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the data stream comprises a transport stream, and wherein encoding the boundary flag comprises encoding the boundary flag in a transport header of the transport stream. (Rationale applied to claim 15 defines also all the limitations of claim 25)
The same motivation for claims 3 and 12 applies to claim 25.
In regard to claim 26, the combination of Luby, Sullivan and Prakash teaches the method of claim 25, wherein encoding the boundary flag comprises encoding the boundary flag in an adaptation field of the transport header of the transport stream. (Rationale applied to claims 8 and 16 defines also all the limitations of claim 26)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/25 in regards to the previously presented portions of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pgs. 8-10 of the Applicant’s Response, the Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach the current claim amendments.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. After further search and consideration of the cited references, Luby discloses data streams comprising GoPs, sub-GoPs, multiple blocks, fragments or segments comprising a first frame (Luby [0131], [0191], [0200]-[0201] and fig. 6). Each sub-GoP has a first frame corresponding to a boundary of the sub-GoP (i.e. a group of pictures of a plurality of groups of pictures) with metadata for each version indicating start times and duration (Luby [0131], [0191], [0200]-[0201] and fig. 6). If there are multiple sub-GoPs or partial GoPs, then the start of the second sub-GoP or partial GoP would have a second boundary comprising a successive frame being independent from the first boundary (i.e. the initial boundary of each GoP from which the sub-GoPs or partial GoPs are divided). In other words, the boundary of each sub-GoP has an initial boundary of a successive frame which is independent of the initial boundary of the GoP from which is it subdivided (Luby [0200]-[0201]) and the data stream contains multiple GoPs (Luby [0131]). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a content fragment” as currently defined in the claims, Luby discloses this ([0200]-[0201] and [0131], if a stream is divided twice into smaller GoPs such as segments or blocks (Luby [0131] and [0201]), then the second smaller GoP has an initial boundary independent of the initial boundary of each GoP as defined in the claim). Therefore, Luby discloses the amended limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the current claim language.
As stated in the interview summary dated 11/28/25, the Examiner recommends further defining the claim terms “content fragment” in a different way than the proposed amendment.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references (pgs. 10-12 of the Applicant’s Remarks regarding Luby and Sullivan), the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, there was a motivation to combine provided for Luby on p. 10 of the Final Rejection dated 9/22/25.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (pgs. 10-12 of the Applicant’s Remarks), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
References considered but not cited
The prior made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
LI et al (US 2012/0311188 A1) teaches Method and Device for Data Segmentation in Data Compression.
Okuyama (US 2005/0244149 Al) teaches Format conversion method and apparatus and format conversion control program.
Darshan (US 2012/0121188 Al) teaches System for random access to content.
Futagami et al. (US 20050108746 A1) teaches Streaming system and streaming method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW KWAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Chris Kelley can be reached on (571)272-7331. 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.
/MATTHEW K KWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482