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 .
Response to Arguments
The Applicant on page 7 of Remarks requested an explanation as to why a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 was presented during the non-final of the RCE. The examiner wishes to clarify by stating that they simply did not recognize the 101 rejections up until the RCE non-final office action.
The objection for claim 5 has been withdrawn in light of the amended claim.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant states “With respect to Step 2A, Prong One of the patent eligibility analysis, the claims recite a specific improvement in a technical field. More specifically, claim 1 is directed to an information processing apparatus that is amended to clarify that it performs a two-step positional determination for an imaging unit using an optical-communication marker and an auxiliary light source marker, and in-image and world coordinate positioning of the markers via at least one processor. This is a technical solution (accurate spatial positioning) and does not fall within any judicial exception”.
The Applicant is stating that the accurate spatial positioning is a technical solution, but it is unclear what the solution is directed towards (i.e. what problem is it solving).
Applicant further argues “Moreover, the claims address a technological problem with technological means. In this regard, the recited operations of claim 1 of acquiring marker positioning including through optical communication, performing initial positioning in an initial positioning determination step, associating auxiliary marker positions in in-image and in-world-coordinate systems, and performing finalized positioning in a final positioning determination step based on the associated auxiliary marker positions are rooted in optical sensing, image coordinate transformation, world coordinate geometry, and linking marker positions in both coordinate systems”.
Similar to the above paragraph, it is unclear what technological problem the Applicant is trying to solve. Optical sensing is simply a field/industry, and it is unclear what issue is being addressed in this field.
Applicant further argues “With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two of the patent eligibility analysis, any abstract idea that may be asserted as being nominally recited in claim 1 is integrated into a practical application. First, the claim is tied to specific, non-generic hardware. Requirements of an imaging unit, a marker transmitting data via optical communication, and an auxiliary marker acting as a light source establish a practical, physical implementation of the subject matter of claim 1”.
While the imaging unit and markers may be a physical implementation, they are not recited where they are more than generic. An imaging unit is a well-known hardware also known as a camera and the auxiliary markers are light emitters that do not show improvement to other known markers. It is also important to note that essentially all of claim 1 is being rejected under prong 1 and the analysis under prong 2 is not applicable to the matter at hand.
Applicant further argues “Next, claim 1 requires real-world data capture and transformation. The at least one processor acquires in-image marker and auxiliary marker positions, the world-coordinate- system marker known position, and performs an association operation so that the world- coordinate system auxiliary marker known position is associated with the corresponding in- image auxiliary marker position for use in the final positioning determination step thereby providing a technically refined, two-step positional determination process for the imaging unit.
Furthermore, as described above, the subject matter of claim 1 produces a concrete, technical, real-world output in the form of finalized positioning information using both a marker that communicates optically and an auxiliary marker that does not but that is still able to use its position in the world coordinate system for the final positioning determination step for producing more efficient and accurate finalized positioning information for the imaging unit”.
Similar to the points above, it is unclear where the technological improvement lies in the Applicant’s explanation, as they are only describing what the invention is doing. The Applicant is stating that this method is efficient and accurate in its finalized positioning information of the imaging unit, but it is unclear how it is an improvement over conventional arts of camera calibrations.
Applicant further argues “With respect to Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, claim 1 recites "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea. The recited limitations including the combination of the two positioning determination steps and the association operation for the final positioning determination as discussed above are far from conventional. These limitations provide an ordered combination that is a non-conventional sequence improving the function of determining the positioning information of the imaging unit both from accuracy and efficiency standpoints”.
Similar to the points above, the Applicant is merely stating that the claim limitations are non-conventional and improving of accuracy and efficiency without an explanation as to how it is an improvement over technology in the art. The concept of associating image and world coordinates and finalizing a position based on this association are also under mental processes that are explained below (and thus these limitations are not analyzed under prong two).
Applicant further argues “Further, the system of Tang et al. is directed to calibrating 3D scanners using a target object 102 having multiple unique markers 120-127 physically distinguishable from each other that are arranged in a predetermined layout. As such, Tang et al. do not disclose or suggest the marker or auxiliary marker of claim 1. In this regard, Tang et al. do not teach that any of the markers 120-127 perform optical communication by changing a light emission mode nor do they teach a light source that does transmit data through optical communication. By contrast, claim 1 requires both”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant further argues “Ogawa is directed to a robotic surgical system and discloses markers 450-454 on a grip unit 100 that are detected by a separate image sensor 13. In paragraph [0054], Ogawa teaches that the markers can be active LEDs that are recognized by the image sensor based on their light emission patterns. However, in no instance do either Tang et al. or Ogawa disclose or suggest that both a marker using optical communication and an auxiliary marker that is a light source or lighting device that does not transmit data through optical communication be used in a two step process for obtaining primary and finalized positioning information for an imaging unit, as called for in amended claim 1”.
The examiner would like to clarify that Ogawa is not replacing the auxiliary markers, as that is instead later modified by Arndt. The modification is simply replacing Tang’s markers with LED lights, a very well-known light that is used to carry out optical communication.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “identify, from the image captured, a light source that is identifiable based on a light emitting mode thereof as the marker”. It is unclear if “a light source” is referring to the same light source as claimed in claim 1. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as “the light source”.
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, 3-5, 8-9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
“acquire from an image captured by an imaging unit and including a marker transmitting positioning information data of the marker in an in-WC-system through optical communication by changing a light emission mode and an auxiliary marker having characteristics different from the marker and being a light source or lighting device without transmitting data through optical communication disposed in a space, an in-image marker position indicating a position of the marker and an in-image auxiliary marker position indicating a position of the auxiliary marker in an image coordinate system” which can be reasonably interpreted as a human observer mentally estimating the position of markers in an image and where it is located in pre-disposed space.
“acquire primary positioning information regarding the imaging unit before finalization in the world coordinate system in an initial positioning determination step, based on the in-image marker position and an in-world-coordinate-system marker known position indicating a known three-dimensional position of the marker in the world coordinate system” which can be reasonably interpreted as a human observer mentally estimating, based on a marker in an image and its world coordinates, where a camera is located, where the camera is facing, its position, etc.
“associate, based on the primary positioning information regarding the imaging unit before finalization and an in-world-coordinate-system known auxiliary marker position indicating a known three- dimensional position of the auxiliary marker in the world coordinate system, the in-image auxiliary marker position with the in-world-coordinate-system auxiliary marker known position” which can be reasonably interpreted as a human observer mentally linking the connection between a marker’s position in an image and world.
“And determine finalized positioning information regarding the imaging unit in a final positioning determination step, based on the in-image auxiliary marker position and the in-world-coordinate-system auxiliary marker known position associated with each other.” which can be reasonably interpreted as a human observer mentally determining a camera’s position based on an auxiliary marker’s image position and its world coordinates.
The additional limitations of “one or more processors” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea and they are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 is rejected for an abstract idea of identifying a light source from an image and acquiring the position of a marker in an image coordinate system. A person can mentally identify where a light is coming from in an image and estimate where a marker is in an image coordinate system.
Claim 4 is rejected for an abstract idea of identifying multiple markers from an image, acquiring positions of the markers in an image coordinate system, and identifying the camera’s position based on the markers. A person can mentally determine if there are multiple markers in an image, estimate where they are in an image coordinate system, and estimate the camera’s position, where it is facing, etc. based on the marker’s position in the image.
Claim 5 is rejected for an abstract idea of specifying a camera position for an image, calculating a new position of the marker, and associating the position of the marker with the new position of the marker. A person can mentally determine a camera position for an image, determine a new position of a marker, and link this new position with the old marker’s position.
Claims 8-9 correspond to claim 1, with claim 8 additionally reciting a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. These parts are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, both are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US 20210350575 A1) in view of Ogawa (US 20120221145 A1) and Arndt (US 20130308305 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tang discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: one or more processors (Tang, paragraph [0029], “The controller 108 may include a central processing unit (CPU), a microcontroller, a microprocessor, a processing core, a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or a similar device capable of executing instructions”) configured to:
acquire from an image captured by an imaging unit (Tang, paragraph [0036], "For example, with reference to the example of FIG. 1, the camera 104 may capture an image in which unique markers 120, 123, 124, 127 are completely resolved") and including a marker transmitting positioning information data of the marker in a world coordinate system (Tang, paragraph [0047], "Hence, the measured coordinates of a unique marker in an image may be associated with the actual coordinates of a unique marker in the real world.").
While Tang discloses a marker transmitting data in a world coordinate system, Tang does not teach doing so “through optical communication by changing a light emission mode”.
However, Ogawa teaches a marker transmitting positioning information data of the marker in a world coordinate system through optical communication by changing a light emission mode (Ogawa, paragraph [0057], " In the example described above, moreover, the markers 450 to 454 are differently spaced apart from one another in order that they can be identified in the image. Alternatively, however, the markers may be varied in, for example, reflectance, diameter, or color. In the case that luminous bodies such as LEDs are used in place of the markers to be recognized by the image sensor, the light emission pattern (light emission interval) of the luminous bodies may be changed.").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to implement and capture Ogawa’s dynamic LEDs in place of several of Tang’s markers.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide better visibility for easier image capturing, as Ogawa’s markers utilize lights.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
While Tang in view of Ogawa teaches a marker with an in-image coordinates and in-world coordinates (Tang, paragraph [0054], “Three markers have three pairs of 2D image positions in an image and corresponding 3D points in world coordinates”), they do not teach “an auxiliary marker having characteristics different from the marker and being a light source or lighting device without transmitting data through optical communication disposed in a space”.
However Arndt teaches an auxiliary marker having characteristics different from the marker and being a light source or lighting device without transmitting data through optical communication disposed in a space (Arndt, paragraph [0030], " When positioned as desired, the light beam is directed upwardly to the ceiling or to a nearby wall enabling a spot of light 26 shining on the ceiling or wall to move on the ceiling or wall as the infant's breathing moves the swaddle light 20 up and down. The baby's breathing movement is traced on the ceiling or wall in a projection of light 26.").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to implement and capture Arndt’s light marker in place of Tang’s (in view of Ogawa) markers.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide better visibility and easier image capturing, as Arndt’s markers utilize lights.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Tang in view of Ogawa and Arndt discloses an in-image marker position indicating a position of the marker and an in-image auxiliary marker position indicating a position of the auxiliary marker in an image coordinate system, acquire primary positioning information regarding the imaging unit before finalization in the world coordinate system in an initial positioning determination step, based on the in-image marker position and an in-world-coordinate-system marker known position indicating a known three-dimensional position of the marker in the world coordinate system (Tang, paragraph [0054], "When computing a pose for a camera with known intrinsic properties using a rigid body pose transformation, three detected unique markers 120-127 may be used. Three markers have three pairs of 2D image positions in an image and corresponding 3D points in world coordinates"),
associate, based on the primary positioning information regarding the imaging unit before finalization and an in-world-coordinate-system known auxiliary marker position indicating a known three- dimensional position of the auxiliary marker in the world coordinate system, the in-image auxiliary marker position with the in-world-coordinate-system auxiliary marker known position (Tang, paragraph [0075], "At block 604, poses and marker homography information of a plurality of cameras may be loaded, if available. The camera poses and marker homography information, or representations thereof, may be considered a calibration for a 3D imaging system.", homography information contains a relation between the image and world coordinates; association by definition is a link, thus this limitation is interpreted as a link between image and world coordinates),
And determine finalized positioning information regarding the imaging unit in a final positioning determination step, based on the in-image auxiliary marker position and the in-world-coordinate-system auxiliary marker known position associated with each other (Tang, paragraph [0087-0088], "At block 708, a unique marker's position in an image is processed using the homography transformation to transform 2D image pixel coordinates to world coordinates. The unique marker is also decoded to obtain the marker's world coordinates (e.g., x, y, z) based on a predetermined layout of unique markers. An offset between the computed coordinates based on the transformed image coordinates and the expected predetermined world coordinates obtained from decoding the marker is determined. Offsets of a plurality of unique markers in a plurality of images may be determined in this way. A mean offset and a maximum offset of the plurality of unique markers may be computed and compared to a threshold, at block 710. If the threshold is not exceeded, then the existing calibration is determined to be validated, at block 712").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to Tang in view of Ogawa and Arndt to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Tang in view of Ogawa and Arndt discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors: identify, from the image captured, a light source that is identifiable based on a light emitting mode thereof as the marker (Tang, paragraph [0054], “When computing a pose for a camera with known intrinsic properties using a rigid body pose transformation, three detected unique markers 120-127 may be used. Three markers have three pairs of 2D image positions in an image and corresponding 3D points in world coordinates”).
Regarding claim 4, Tang in view of Ogawa and Arndt discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors: identify the marker comprising two or more markers from the image captured, acquire a plurality of positions of markers in the image coordinate system, acquire the positioning information before finalization regarding the imaging unit, based on the plurality of positions of markers in the image coordinate system and positions in the world coordinate system that respectively correspond to the two or more markers identified (Tang, paragraph [0054], “When computing a pose for a camera with known intrinsic properties using a rigid body pose transformation, three detected unique markers 120-127 may be used. Three markers have three pairs of 2D image positions in an image and corresponding 3D points in world coordinates”).
Claim 8 corresponds to claim 1, additionally reciting a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to perform operations (Tang, paragraph [0029], “The controller 108 may cooperate with a non-transitory machine-readable medium that may be an electronic, magnetic, optical, or other physical storage device that encodes executable instructions”). Thus, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 1.
Claim 9 corresponds to claim 1, additionally reciting a positioning method executable by a computer (Tang, paragraph [0041], “The method 200 may be performed with any of the devices and systems described herein”). Thus, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Tang in view of Ogawa and Arndt discloses the positioning information processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the marker comprises two or more markers and the auxiliary marker comprises two or more auxiliary markers (Tang, paragraph [0036], Fig. 1 below, “Using a greater number of detected unique markers 120-127, such as five, may increase accuracy, particularly when camera lens distortion is a concern and/or when there is an uncontrolled/unpredictable ambient environment.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
454
427
media_image1.png
Greyscale
5
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US 20210350575 A1) in view of Ogawa (US 20120221145 A1), Arndt (US 20130308305 A1), and in further view Hiroi (US 20180068158 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Tang in view of Ogawa and Arndt discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Tang in view of Ogawa and Arndt does not teach “wherein the one or more processors: specify an imaging position and an imaging direction for the image captured, based on the positioning information before finalization”.
However, Hiroi teaches wherein the one or more processors: specify an imaging position (“First, based on the map data acquired by the first acquisition unit 110 and the image data acquired by the second acquisition unit 120, the identification unit 140 identifies the imaging position corresponding to the image data,” Hiroi, paragraph [0050]) and an imaging direction for the image captured, based on the positioning information of the marker before finalization (Hiroi, paragraph [0059], “The informing unit 150 identifies this target position based on the relation between the imaging position and the target position. For example, the informing unit 150 identifies the direction toward the target position as seen from the imaging position”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to find the imaging position and direction of Tang’s (in view of Ogawa and Arndt) camera, as taught by Hiroi.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to achieve a better understanding of the displacement between the camera and markers.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Tang in view of Ogawa, Arndt, and Hiroi discloses calculate a new position of the auxiliary marker by performing projection calculation processing on an assumption that the position of the auxiliary marker in the world coordinate system is projected onto the image captured, and associate the position of the auxiliary marker in the world coordinate system with the calculated new position of the auxiliary marker so as to associate the position of the auxiliary marker in the image coordinate system with the position of the auxiliary marker in the world coordinate system (Tang, paragraph [0077-0078], "The computed positions of unique markers and the marker homography information may be used to validate the current calibration, as will be further described with respect to FIG. 7. If the computed positions of the unique markers are sufficiently accurate, at block 616, then the existing calibration is validated. If the existing calibration is not validated, then a new calibration is obtained, at block 610. At block 610, obtaining a new calibration may include imaging quality determination, unique marker detection and decoding, marker selection and/or disregarding, and computation of camera poses, as described with respect to the various methods of FIGS. 2 to 5. Any of these methods or combinations thereof may be used.", Tang discloses finding a more accurate position of the markers if they are not sufficient enough in the calibration validation. Due to this, there will be an association between the previous identification of a marker and the new identification of a marker.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tang in view of Ogawa, and Arndt with Hiroi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Claim 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US 20210350575 A1) in view of Ogawa (US 20120221145 A1), Arndt (US 20130308305 A1), and in further view of Kotake (US 7529387 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Tang in view of Ogawa and Arndt discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Tang in view of Ogawa and Arndt does not teach “wherein the auxiliary marker has a polygonal shape, and wherein the one or more processors: acquire the position of the auxiliary marker in the image coordinate system, based on positions of vertexes of the polygonal shape of the auxiliary marker in the image captured”.
However, Kotake teaches wherein the auxiliary marker has a polygonal shape (“Alternately, a polygon marker other than a square like that illustrated in FIG. 9B may be employed,” Kotake ‘387, Col. 20, Line 3-4),
and wherein the one or more processors: acquire the position of the auxiliary marker in the image coordinate system, based on positions of vertexes of the polygonal shape of the auxiliary marker in the image captured (“Detection of point markers is performed by obtaining the center of gravity of each point marker region on a 2-D image, and detection of square markers is performed by obtaining each vertex of each square marker on a 2-D image,” Kotake, Col. 23, Line 27-31).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify Tang’s (in view of Ogawa and Arndt) auxiliary markers to be a polygonal shape and detect them based on their vertices, as taught by Kotake.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve detection rates, as vertices can now be used as a basis for detections (as opposed to a circular marker).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tang in view of Ogawa and Arndt with Kotake to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Tang in view of Ogawa, Arndt, and Kotake discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the one or more processors: acquire a center position of the auxiliary marker in a case where the auxiliary marker in the image captured is of a size smaller than a predetermined size, and acquire the position of the auxiliary marker in the image coordinate system, based on the center position (Tang, paragraph [0051], “The coordinates of a unique marker 120-127 may represent the corner of the unique marker 120-127, the center of the unique marker 120-127, or a similar point. The world coordinate system may have an origin at any point, such as the coordinates of particular unique marker 120-127, the coordinates of the platform 110 (e.g., at a corner or center), or other datum point”, acquiring the center of a marker also acquires the position of the marker and vice versa).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE ZHANG whose telephone number is (571) 272-0245. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00 EST.
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, Ms. Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached on (571) 272-3638. 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.
/WAYNE ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights