DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 5 – 9, 17, 21 – 24, 31 and 32 are pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 03 June 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
With regard to the Final Office Action from 13 March 2026, the Applicant has filed a response on 03 June 2026.
Claims 10, 14, 15, 16, 25, 29 and 30 have been cancelled.
New claims 31 and 32 have been added.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, especially the rejection given to the independent claims. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment to the claims. The claims will be considered by their current presentation in the following section.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 9, 17 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DU et al. (US 2019/0115044 A1: hereafter — Du) in view of Levin, Keith, et al. (“Fixed-dimensional acoustic embeddings of variable-length segments in low-resource settings.” 2013 IEEE workshop on automatic speech recognition and understanding. IEEE, 2013: hereafter — Levin), further in view of Johnson (US 2021/0082424 A1), further in view of Slanley et al. (US 2013/0160038 A1: hereafter — Slanley), and further in view of Sullivan (US 2014/0357234 A1).
For claim 1, discloses an apparatus for encoding audio information (Du: [0093] — a dedicated system; [0024] — obtaining stable encoding results), the apparatus comprising:
one or more memories (Du: [0091] — storage devices); and
one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories (Du: [0090] — microprocessor/processor as well as a computer readable medium that stores computer readable program code) and configured to:
detect one or more input audio segments, wherein the one or more input audio segments are of variable length (Du: [0022] — obtaining audio data; [0038] — the audio data may be segmented into frames but the frames do not have a fixed duration length (indicating audio segments of variable length)).
The reference of Du provides teaching for a system able to receive audio segments of variable lengths and generate representations of the audio segments. This reference however fails to teach of downsampling vector representations of the audio segments to generate fixed length representations.
This teaching is however not new to the art as the reference of Levin is now introduced to teach this as:
process the one or more input audio segments to generate one or more embedding vector representations of the one or more input audio segments (Levin: page 1 Col 2 2. — mapping audio segments of arbitrary lengths into a vector space (obtaining embedding vector representations of the input audio));
downsample the one or more embedding vector representations to generate one or more embedding vector representations of fixed length (Levin: page 2 Col 1 2.1 — performing a uniform downsampling in order to obtain segments with vectors having fixed dimensionality of d = kp (a fixed length of the vector representation)).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the system of Du which generates representations of received input audio of variable lengths, by applying the known technique of Levin which generates fixed length embedding vector representations of the input audio segments through a downsampling method, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of obtaining vectors of the same dimensionality to ensure that they can all be easily compared to each other for the purpose of determining their similarity to each other. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination of Du in view of Levin provides teaching for obtaining fixed length embedding vector representations of the input audio segments resulting from a downsampling action, but differs from the claimed invention in that the combination of Dun in view of Levin fails to teach of comparing the embedding vector representations to stored vector representations of the same fixed length, to determine a target vector representation.
This teaching however isn’t new to the art as the reference of Johnson is now introduced to teach this as:
compare an embedding vector representation of the one or more embedding vector representations of fixed length to a plurality of embedding vector representations that are downsampled to fixed length and stored in the one or more memories, the plurality of embedding vector representations representing a plurality of audio segments (Johnson: [0007] — a vector representation is generated for an input spoken utterance and compared to a plurality of keys in a plurality of key-value pairs, wherein the keys represent multi-dimensional vector representations of sentences (teaching of the keys as stored vector representations of other audio segments), and a match is made to the most-similar key-value pair that is closest to the input spoken utterance; [0010] — a match function includes a cosine similarity (cosine similarity requires both vectors being compared to be of the same size/length, indicating that the embedding vector representation of the input audio segment and those being compared to, are of fixed lengths, and have been resampled to be of the fixed length));
determine, based on comparing the embedding vector representation to the plurality of embedding vector representations, one or more target embedding vector representations from the plurality of embedding vector representations stored in the one or more memories that match the embedding vector representation (Johnson: [0007] — a vector representation is generated for an input spoken utterance and compared to a plurality of keys in a plurality of key-value pairs, wherein the keys represent multi-dimensional vector representations of sentences (teaching of the keys as stored vector representations of other audio segments), and a match is made to the most-similar key-value pair that is closest to the input spoken utterance (making a match is an indication of finding a target embedding vector representation); [0010] — a match function includes a cosine similarity).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the technique of the combination of Du in view of Levin which obtains fixed length embedding vector representations of an input audio segment, whereby the fixed length embedding vector representations are obtained through downsampling, by applying the known technique of Johnson which compares the embedding vector representations to stored vector representations of the same fixed length, to determine a target vector representation, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would gave yielded the predictable result of being able to identify from storage, a stored vector embedding representation that is most-similar to the input audio segment, such that the identification of a most-similar vector can which can then be applied for further audio processing involving content retrieval at a different location or also classification of the input segment based on the knowledge of the identified target vector. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination of Du in view of Levin further in view of Johnson provides teaching for determining target embedding vectors associated with input audio segments, but this combination differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides the determination of indices associated with target audio segments that correspond to the identified target embedding vectors.
This teaching isn’t new to the art as the reference of Slanley is now introduced to teach this as:
determine one or more indices associated with one or more target audio segments that correspond to the one or more target embedding vector representations that match the embedding vector representation, wherein each index of the one or more indices indicates a location of a respective audio segment stored in an audio storage (Slanley: [0011] — features of segments of an input audio are obtained and compared to content within a database of a plurality of audio segments to obtain a matching content that has data points closest to the input audio segment, such that a content identifier is obtained for the closest matching content (the content identifier being the index representing the location of matching audio segment that is identified as being that of the target embedding vector representation).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the technique of the combination of Du in view of Levin further in view of Johnson which determines target embedding vectors associated with input audio segments, by applying the known technique of Slanley which, after identifying matching contents by their vectors, obtains associated content identifiers of the content (the content identifiers being representative of the content/target audio location so that the content/target audio may be located), to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of pointing directly to the relevant and applicable speech segment, allowing the system to avoid searching through all available audio. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination of Du in view of Levin further in view of Johnson and further in view of Slanley provides teaching for identifying indices for locating target audio segments, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for packetizing the indices and transmitting them.
This teaching isn’t new to the art as the reference of Sullivan is now introduced to teach this as:
packetize the one or more indices (Sullivan: [0014] — obtaining a packet that includes the network address (taking the network address as the index that identifies the location of the detected audio) of a detected audio); and
transmit the one or more packetized indices (Sullivan: [0014] — sending the packet that includes the network address of the detected audio).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the technique of the combination of Du in view of Levin further in view of Johnson and further in view of Slanley which identifies indices for locating target audio segments, by applying the known technique of Sullivan which packetizes the network address of a detected audio segment and transmits the packets, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of conserving power and transmitting a lesser amount of information by only transmitting the bits needed to represent audio in lieu of the entire compressed audio packet. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
For claim 9, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Du in view of Levin further in view of Johnson and further in view of Slanley, and further in view of Sullivan discloses the apparatus, wherein the one or more input audio segments include an input speech segment, and wherein the plurality of audio segments includes a plurality of speech segments (Du: [0038] — the audio data can be a segment of speech; [0037] — the audio data can be divided into a plurality of frames).
As for claim 17, method claim 17 and apparatus claim 1 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed apparatus, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed apparatus parts. Accordingly, claim 17 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to the apparatus claim 1.
As for claim 24, method claim 24 and apparatus claim 9 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed apparatus, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed apparatus parts. Accordingly, claim 24 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to the apparatus claim 9.
Claims 5, 21, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 2019/0115044 A1) in view of Levin (“Fixed-dimensional acoustic embeddings of variable-length segments in low-resource settings.” 2013 IEEE workshop on automatic speech recognition and understanding), further in view of Johnson (US 2021/0082424 A1), further in view of Slanley (US 2013/0160038 A1), further in view of Sullivan (US 2014/0357234 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marko et al. (US 2014/0297292 A1: hereafter — Marko).
For claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Du in view of Levin further in view of Johnson and further in view of Slanley and further in view of Sullivan provides teaching for packetizing indices representing audio. This combination however differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for encoding the packetized indices.
This isn’t new to the art as the reference of Marko is now introduced to teach this as:
the apparatus, wherein:
the one or more processors are configured to encode the one or more packetized indices as an audio bitstream (Marko: FIG. 15 1520 → 1525 → 1527 — organising the packetized indices into a bit stream and encoding the bit stream; [0092] — encoded bitstream; FIG. 10 — a processor); and
to transmit the one or more packetized indices, the one or more processors are configured to transmit the audio bitstream (Marko: [0094] — ‘Once obtained, this list of IDs for the identified codewords is transmitted over a broadcast stream to decoder).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious combine the known teaching of the combination of Du in view of Levin further in view of Johnson and further in view of Slanley and further in view of Sullivan which teaches of transmitting packets that represent addresses to detected audio, with the known technique provided by Marko which transmits the encoded packets as an audio bitstream, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have yielded the predictable result of using an audio communication channel as the transport medium, thereby not requiring a separate type of communication medium. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As for claim 21, method claim 21 and apparatus claim 5 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed apparatus, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed apparatus parts. Accordingly, claim 21 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to the apparatus claim 5.
For claim 31, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Du in view of Levin further in view of Johnson, further in view of Slanley, and further in view of Sullivan discloses the apparatus, comprising a decoder configured to:
receive one or more packetized indices associated with one or more target audio segments, wherein the one or more target audio segments are of variable length (Sullivan: [0015] — receiving the transmitted network packets (noting from [0014] that the network address identifies the location of the detected audio/target audio segment); [0222] — audio files having differing lengths);
depacketize the one or more packetized indices to generate one or more indices associated with the one or more target audio segments, wherein each index of the one or more indices indicates a location of a respective audio segment stored in an audio storage (Sullivan: [0015] — receiving the transmitted network packets (noting from [0014] that the network address identifies the location of the detected audio/target audio segment);
retrieve, from the audio storage, each target audio segment of the one or more target audio segments based on each index of the one or more indices (Sullivan: [0015] — receiving the transmitted network packets (noting from [0014] that the network address identifies the location of the detected audio/target audio segment).
The combination of Du in view of Levin further in view of Johnson, further in view of Slanley, and further in view of Sullivan however fails to particularly teach of a decoder which functions to concatenate the target audio segments and output the concatenated target audio segments as decoded speech.
The reference of Marko is introduced to teach this as:
the apparatus, comprising a decoder (Marko: FIG. 16, [0031] — a decoder) configured to:
depacketize the one or more packetized indices to generate one or more indices associated with the one or more target audio segments, wherein each index of the one or more indices indicates a location of a respective audio segment stored in an audio storage (Marko: [0051] — reconstructing packets, combining identified packets to reproduce the original compressed audio packets; [0070], [0086], [0094] — receiving a transmitted packet stream, decodes a received stream to obtain a baseband stream);
concatenate the one or more target audio segments (Marko: [0085], FIG. 13 — receiving and combining audio streams, as well as the presence of an audio decoder being connected to a speaker to output the decoded combined audio; [0149] — a combination of neighbouring frames of audio , so that at the end, decoded audio can be played through the user device; [0089] — audio can contain human speech); and
output the one or more concatenated target audio segments as decoded speech (Marko: [0085], FIG. 13 — receiving and combining audio streams, as well as the presence of an audio decoder being connected to a speaker to output the decoded combined audio; [0149] — a combination of neighbouring frames of audio , so that at the end, decoded audio can be played through the user device; [0089] — audio can contain human speech).
The combination of Du in view of Levin further in view of Johnson, further in view of Slanley, and further in view of Sullivan provides teaching for receiving packetized indices that represent the location of respective audio segments, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for performing depacketizing, concatenating audio and outputting the concatenated audio as decoded speech. This combination is however not new to the art as the reference of Marko is seen to teach above.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious improve upon the teaching of the combination of Du in view of Levin further in view of Johnson and further in view of Slanley and further in view of Sullivan which teaches receiving packetized indices that represent the location of respective audio segments, by applying the known technique of Marko which provides a system with a decoder that performs depacketizing, concatenating audio and outputting the concatenated audio as decoded speech, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of transmitting audio through the use of packets that represent the location of the audio, from one device to another, further ensuring a proper reconstruction of the audio content at the device receiving the transmission, without having to actually transmit the full range of audio data, leading to the use of less computing resources. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As for claim 32, method claim 32 and apparatus claim 31 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed apparatus, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed apparatus parts. Accordingly, claim 32 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to the apparatus claim 31.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 2019/0115044 A1) in view of Levin (“Fixed-dimensional acoustic embeddings of variable-length segments in low-resource settings.” 2013 IEEE workshop on automatic speech recognition and understanding), further in view of Johnson (US 2021/0082424 A1), further in view of Slanley (US 2013/0160038 A1), further in view of Sullivan (US 2014/0357234 A1), and further in view of Marko (US 2014/0297292 A1) as applied to claims 5 and 21 above, and further in view of ATTI et al. (US 2019/0103118 A1: hereafter — Atti).
For claim 6, claim 5 is incorporated and the combination of Du in view of Levin further in view of Johnson, further in view of Slanley and further in view of Sullivan provides teaching for transmitting audio bitstreams. This combination however fails to teach the further limitation of the transmission of the bitstream being less than one thousand bits per second.
This however isn’t new to the art as the reference of Atti is now introduced to teach this as:
the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit the audio bitstream at less than one thousand bits per second (Atti: [0104] — the size of encoded data of stream being less than 1 kbps).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of the combination of Du in view of Levin further in view of Johnson, further in view of Slanley, further in view of Sullivan, and further in view of Marko which provides transmitting audio bitstreams, with the known teaching of Atti which transmits audio bitstream at less than 1kb/s, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of transmitting small bitstream sizes to prevent excessive data loss or corruption which could occur in a case where larger bitstream sizes are transmitted. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 2019/0115044 A1) in view of Levin (“Fixed-dimensional acoustic embeddings of variable-length segments in low-resource settings.” 2013 IEEE workshop on automatic speech recognition and understanding), further in view of Johnson (US 2021/0082424 A1), further in view of Slanley (US 2013/0160038 A1), further in view of Sullivan (US 2014/0357234 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of JANG et al. (US 2020/0372906 A1: hereafter — Jang).
For claim 7, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Du in view of Levin further in view of Johnson, further in view of Slanley and further in view of Sullivan provides teaching for comparing an embedding vector representation of the input audio segment to a plurality of other embedding vector representations to determine a match. This combination however fails to explicitly teach of comparing the representation of the input audio segment with a plurality of representations based on determining a respective difference, such that the chosen target representation is based on that having the smallest difference.
This isn’t new to the art as the reference of Jang is now introduced to teach as:
the apparatus, wherein:
to compare the embedding vector representation to the plurality of embedding vector representations, the one or more processors are configured to determine a respective difference between the embedding vector representation and each respective representation of the plurality of embedding vector representations (Jang: [0040] — a vector search engine that identifies a match between a vector and a particular stored vector based on the difference between the vector and the particular stored vector, computing the difference between the vector and the stored vectors (indicating the plurality of representations)); and
the one or more processors are configured to determine the one or more target embedding vector representations based on one or more target embedding vector representations having one or more smallest differences from the embedding vector representation out of the plurality of embedding vector representations (Jang: [0040] — computing the differences between vectors and selecting as a match, the stored vector having the smallest computed difference).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the teaching of the combination of Du in view of Levin further in view of Johnson, further in view of Slanley, and further in view of Sullivan, which compares an embedding vector representation of the input audio segment to a plurality of other embedding vector representations to determine a match, by applying the known technique of Jang which selects a matching vector based on the target vector having the smallest computed difference with the vector being checked, with the matching of a representation of the input audio segment, the representation being a vector, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of obtaining a matching audio representation based on computing the smallest difference that represents the closest related vector, presenting the best available target representation. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As for claim 22, method claim 22 and apparatus claim 7 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed apparatus, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed apparatus parts. Accordingly, claim 22 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to the apparatus claim 7.
Claims 8 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 2019/0115044 A1) in view of Levin (“Fixed-dimensional acoustic embeddings of variable-length segments in low-resource settings.” 2013 IEEE workshop on automatic speech recognition and understanding), further in view of Johnson (US 2021/0082424 A1), further in view of Slanley (US 2013/0160038 A1), further in view of Sullivan (US 2014/0357234 A1), and further in view of Jang (US 2020/0372906 A1) as applied to claims 7 and 22, and further in view of Yamada et al. (US 2011/0313773 A1: hereafter — Yamada).
For claim 8, claim 7 is incorporated and the combination of Du in view of Levin further in view of Johnson, further in view of Slanley and further in view of Sullivan and further in view of Jang discloses determining one or more target representations of one or more target audio segments stored in a memory. This combination however differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention now further provides teaching for determining the one or more target embedding vector representations based on a search and concatenation operation.
This is however not new to the art as the reference of Yamada is now introduced to teach this as:
the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the one or more target embedding vector representations further based on a search and concatenation operation (Yamada: [0246] — a matching unit to obtain a search result target vector based on searching for the result target vector and performing concatenation).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the teaching of the combination of Du in view of Levin further in view of Johnson, further in view of Slanley, further in view of Sullivan, and further in view of Jang which determines one or more target representations, by applying the known technique of Yamada which determines matching a vector based on search and concatenation operations, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result that this search and concatenation operations is known to be useful in obtaining similarities between two vectors, thereby being able to obtain a suitable match. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As for claim 23, method claim 23 and apparatus claim 8 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed apparatus, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed apparatus parts. Accordingly, claim 23 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to the apparatus claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Bouazizi et al. (US 2015/0032845 A1) provides teaching for transporting a packet that includes an identifier of a payload [0008].
BACHRACH et al. (US 2019/0155905 A1) provides teaching for outputting a fixed-length array of real values of data representations, such as those obtained through the use of Word2Vec [0042].
Holzenberger, Nils, et al. (“Learning word embeddings: Unsupervised methods for fixed-size representations of variable-length speech segments.” Interspeech 2018. ISCA, 2018) provides teaching for performing downsampling on extracted equidistant samples from a time series (page 3 Col 1 3.1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to OLUWADAMILOLA M. OGUNBIYI whose telephone number is (571)272-4708. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursday (8:00 AM – 5:30 PM Eastern Standard Time).
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, PARAS D. SHAH can be reached at (571) 270-1650. 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.
/OLUWADAMILOLA M OGUNBIYI/Examiner, Art Unit 2653
Prosecution Insights