DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s response filed on 08/10/2023. Claims 6, 8, 11 and 13 are canceled. Claims 1-5,7, 9-10 and 12 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendment
Double Patenting: The amended claims filed on 08/10/2025 overcomes the Double Patenting rejection in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. & 101: Applicant argues that the amended claim(s) 1 to include patent-eligible subject matter. After reviewing the amendments and argument filed on 08/10/2025, the Examiner has withdrawn the previous 101 rejection for the following reasons: The claims provide a practical application/improvement to the technical field.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. & 102: Applicant's arguments filed on 08/10/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) rejection in view of Meyer et al (U.S. 7,130,468 B1; Meyer).
Claims Status
Claims 1, 7 and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 10 of copending Application No. 18/150,225 (Goldhammer et al, U.S. 20230230383 A1), in view of Meyer et al (U.S. 7,130,468 B1; Meyer).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meyer et al (U.S. 7,130,468 B1; Meyer).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al (U.S. 7,130,468 B1; Meyer), in view of Gagvani et al (U.S. 20100290710 A1; Gagvani).
Claim(s) 5,7, 9-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al (U.S. 7,130,468 B1; Meyer), in view of Gagvani et al (U.S. 20100290710 A1; Gagvani), and in further view of Wustefeld et al (U.S. 20020150278 A1; Wustefeld).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
The USPTO may not institute a derivation proceeding in the absence of a timely filed petition. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office normally will not institute a derivation proceeding between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see 37 CFR 42.411). The applicant should amend or cancel claims such that the reference and the instant application no longer contain claims directed to the same invention.
Claims 1, 7 and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 10 of copending Application No. 18/150225 (Goldhammer et al, U.S. 20230230383 A1), in view of Meyer et al (U.S. 7,130,468 B1; Meyer).
For example, claim 1, although this claim is not identical to Claim 1 of Application No. 18/150225, this claim is not patentably distinct from Claim 1 of Application No. 18/150225 because Claim 1 is broader than and fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Application No. 18/150225.
Examiner noted: Independent claim(s) 1 for the instant application, shares in common with the claim(s) of reference App. No. 18/150,225 filed on 06/24/2025 and the effective U.S. filing of co- pending application App. No. 18/150,225 on January 5, 2023, which is the same day of the effective U.S. filing of App. No. 18/150,219 for the present application. Therefore, both the application under examination and the reference application have the same patent term filing date, the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection made in each application should be maintained until it is overcome. See MPEP §804(I)(B)(2).
For example, claim 1, although this claim is not identical to Claim 1 of Application No. 18/150225, this claim is not patentably distinct from Claim 1 of Application No. 18/150225 because Claim 1 is broader than and fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Application No. 18/150225.
Application 18/150219 (US-20230230383 A1)
Application No. 18/150225 (US-20230214980 A1)
A method of inspecting a static monitoring installation, the method comprising:
creating a comparison image from the signals reflected from an object;
forming a comparison value of the comparison image from the reflected signals;
determining a deviation value between the comparison value of the comparison image and a reference value of a reference image formed from signals reflected from a reference point; and
outputting a blockage signal when the deviation value exceeds a threshold value.
A method of inspecting a static monitoring installation, the method comprising:
creating a reference image from signal reflections from static objects in a monitoring space monitored by the monitoring installation;
determining at least one reference value from the signal reflections of the reference image
creating a comparison image from the signal reflections from static objects in the monitoring space , wherein the comparison image is recorded with a time offset after the reference image;
determining at least one comparison value from signal reflections of the comparison mage; and
outputting a fault signal based on a deviation of the comparison value and the reference value exceeding threshold value;
wherein the reference image and the comparison image are associated with a polar coordinate system grid, wherein the polar coordinate grid system comprising a plurality of grid fields having an angle, a distance, and an intensity, and wherein the intensity of the grid field is based on a number and an intensity of the reflections of the respective grid field.
Goldhammer et al , Application 18/150,225 (U.S. 20230230383 A1) discloses all the claim invention except for wherein the blockage signal indicates that one of a visual obstruction and a stationary blockage is in a monitoring area of the static monitoring installation.
In related art, Meyer et al (U.S. 7,130,468 B1; Meyer) shares in common with the claim(s) of independent claim(s) 1 for the instant application.
Meyer discloses wherein the blockage signal indicates that one of a visual obstruction and a stationary blockage is in a monitoring area of the static monitoring installation. (Col 1 – lines 45 to Col 2 -line 4: “with the characterizing features of the independent claims, have the advantage over the prior art that when people who remain in a predetermined scene for an unusual length of time are detected, when objects that are placed in a predetermined scene are detected … that is, when static changes in a predetermined viewfield are detected … It is particularly advantageous to compare the chronological course of the change in a region of interest with the chronological course of a change in the overall image so that long-term changes of the region can be reliably detected … Temporary changes, such as the short-term obstruction of a camera by a person, an insect sitting on the lens of the monitoring camera, or the like, are thus reliably detected.”)
Therefore, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Goldhammer by including detected static changes in a predetermined viewfield that is taught by Meyer, to make the invention that monitoring a scene to detect changes; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the references since this will improving the detected a static change in the overall image so that long-term changes and temporary change of the region can be reliably detected.
As for claim 7 although this claim is not identical to Claim 8 of Application 18/150225 this claim is not patentably distinct from Claim 8 of Application No. 18/150225 because Claim 7 is broader than and fully encompassed by claim 8 Application No. 18/150225.
As for claim 9 although this claim is not identical to Claim 10 of Application 18/150225 this claim is not patentably distinct from Claim 10 of Application No. 18/150225 because Claim 9 is broader than and fully encompassed by claim 10 Application No. 18/150225.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meyer et al (U.S. 7,130,468 B1; Meyer).
Regarding claim 1, Meyer discloses a method of inspecting a static monitoring installation, (Col 1 – lines 24-25: “a method and a system for monitoring a scene to detect changes”) the method comprising:
creating a comparison image from the signals reflected from an object; (Figs. 1-4 and Col 3 – lines 16-29: “A stationary camera captures continuous images of a predetermined viewfield in which possible changes are to be detected … in process step 11, the structure data are calculated for both the reference image and the current image by virtue of the fact that the gradient of the brightness value and/or the color value in the horizontal direction and vertical direction of the two-dimensional pictures are detected and along with them, the edge data or the data relating to jumps in the gray value or color value in the viewfield.”)
forming a comparison value of the comparison image from the reflected signals; (Col 4 – lines 5-11: “in process step 10, the edge image belonging to the region is separated from the edge image obtained to in the process step 11 of FIG. 2 and in process step 20, the correlation value of the regional edge image with the corresponding partial image of the edge image of the reference image is calculated.”)
determining a deviation value between the comparison value of the comparison image and a reference value of a reference image formed from signals reflected from a reference point; (Col 4 – lines 17-24: “To this end, in process step 30, the change in image brightness and image contrast of the region in the current image in comparison to the reference image is calculated. Then in process step 40, the structural deviation is calculated. The average quadratic deviation of the edge image of the current image from the edge image of the reference image in the region is determined pixel by pixel.”) and
outputting a blockage signal when the deviation value exceeds a threshold value, (Col 4 – lines 24-37: “the resulting numerical value is then corrected with regard to image brightness and image contrast … The determined numerical value is compared to a threshold S2 (e.g. S2=5). If the numerical value is greater than the threshold S2, then the region is identified as changed (process step 70).”) wherein the blockage signal indicates that one of a visual obstruction and a stationary blockage is in a monitoring area of the static monitoring installation. (Col 1 – lines 45 to Col 2 -line 4: “with the characterizing features of the independent claims, have the advantage over the prior art that when people who remain in a predetermined scene for an unusual length of time are detected, when objects that are placed in a predetermined scene are detected … that is, when static changes in a predetermined viewfield are detected … It is particularly advantageous to compare the chronological course of the change in a region of interest with the chronological course of a change in the overall image so that long-term changes of the region can be reliably detected … Temporary changes, such as the short-term obstruction of a camera by a person, an insect sitting on the lens of the monitoring camera, or the like, are thus reliably detected.”)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al (U.S. 7,130,468 B1; Meyer), in view of Gagvani et al (U.S. 20100290710 A1; Gagvani).
Regarding claim 2, Meyer discloses all the claimed invention except wherein the comparison image is temporally smoothed.
Gagvani discloses wherein the comparison image is temporally smoothed. (Fig.2 and step 205 and Paragraph 44: “In step 205 a current frame or image is obtained and smoothed. The current frame can be smoothed with the Gaussian kernel with an appropriate value of sigma, s2.”)
Therefore, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Meyer by including the filter/smoothed images that is taught by Gagvani, to make the invention that motion/object detecting in a surveillance video; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the references since this will improving the quality of the images as modified the image resolution. (Paragraph 43, Gagvani).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Meyer, as modified by Gagvani discloses all the claimed invention. Gagvani further discloses further comprising smoothing the comparison image using a low-pass filter. (Fig.2 and step 205 and Paragraphs 41-44: “In step 205 a current frame or image is obtained and smoothed. The current frame can be smoothed with the Gaussian kernel with an appropriate value of sigma, s2.”, it show that “Gaussian filter” interpreted as “low-pass filter”)
Regarding claim 4, Meyer, as modified by Gagvani discloses all the claimed invention. wherein the comparison image comprises multiple comparison images recorded with a time offset, and wherein comparison values are formed for each comparison image among the multiple comparison images. (Col 3 – lines 16-29: “A stationary camera captures continuous images of a predetermined viewfield in which possible changes are to be detected”; Col 2 – line 55 to Col 3 – line 14: “The stationary camera supplies image data to the computer 2, which executes a video-based detection of static scene changes, as described in FIGS. 2, 3, and 4. … the times T1 and T2 and the selection of the regions are also stored in the memory 4 in the same way as the reference image.”; Col 4 – line: 1-5: “Before the monitoring is started, regions of interest are established in the viewfield to be monitored. These parts of the image, which are referred to below as regions, as well as the overall image, are subjected to a correlation consideration each time the new image is processed”)
Claim(s) 5,7, 9-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al (U.S. 7,130,468 B1; Meyer), in view of Gagvani et al (U.S. 20100290710 A1; Gagvani), and in further view of Wustefeld et al (U.S. 20020150278 A1; Wustefeld).
Regarding claim 5, Meyer, as modified by Gagvani discloses all the claimed invention except further comprising delaying the blockage signal based on a change in the comparison values or a change in the deviation value.
Wustefeld discloses further comprising delaying the blockage signal based on a change in the comparison values or a change in the deviation value. (Fig.4 and Paragraphs 56-57: “all bright and dark regions are displaced in the same manner so that the actual measured values a '.sub.1-a '.sub.4 and b'.sub.1 to b'.sub.3 determined in accordance with FIG. 4b each remain unchanged with respect to the reference values a.sub.1 to a '.sub.4 and b.sub.1 to b.sub.3 determined in accordance with FIG. 4a. Since no deviation can thus be found between the measured values and the reference values, no reaction is triggered either … This displacement then results in a change in the measured values a '.sub.2, a'.sub.3, b'.sub.1 and b'.sub.3. These actual measured values then no longer correspond to the reference values associated with them so that a reaction is triggered in a desired manner.”)
Therefore, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Meyer and Gagvani by including the use of a plurality of measured values that is taught by Wustefeld, to make the invention that the detection of an object moving in the monitoring range of a camera.; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the references since this will improving the measured values of the same or of different type are derived from the actual image information or structure information as well as the risk of erroneous reactions or erroneously omitted reactions can additionally be reduced by the use of a plurality of measured values. (Paragraph 22, Wustefeld).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Meyer, as modified by Gagvani and Wutsefeld, discloses all the claimed invention. Gagvani further discloses further comprising adjusting the threshold values based on the deviation value. (Paragraph 63-66: “In step 245 of FIG. 2, the HighThreshold value is updated … Low contrast video and scene illumination require a lower value. For high quality moving object detection, HighThreshold cannot be fixed and must be adjusted for each pixel at each time instant. … The above two rules gradually increase the value of HighThreshold, and immediately reset the value to InitialHighThresholdValue, if the pixel difference between the background image and the current image is below InitialHighThresholdValue … both the LowThreshold and the HighThreshold can be updated. By updating both the LowThreshold and the HighThreshold at each input frame, less frequent background image updates can be used.”)
Regarding claim 9, Meyer, as modified by Gagvani and Wutsefeld, discloses all the claimed invention. Gagvani further discloses further comprising adjusting the reference image or the reference value based on the comparison image or the comparison value. (Fig.1 and Paragraphs 5 -7: “Changes in pixel values for a given image can be computed relative to pixel values in a reference image of the same scene. A reference image, which can be referred to as a background image, … The initial step can be to build a background image, representing an observed scene … The second step, for each "current" frame, can be to determine illumination differences between the current scene image and the background image (e.g., compute a background difference image), at 105”)
Regarding claim 10, Meyer, as modified by Gagvani and Wutsefeld, discloses all the claimed invention. Wutsefeld further discloses wherein the reference image is divided into different areas, with at least one reference value being formed for each area, (Paragraphs 54- : “The reference image is recorded with an object-free monitored region and shows a structure with five bright regions located at mutually different distances which are each mutually bounded by dark regions. The reference values al to a.sub.4 determined from the reference image relate to the mutual spacings of adjacent bright structure regions, whereas the reference values b.sub.1 to b.sub.3 represent the spacings of mutually adjacent dark structure regions”) and wherein the blockage signal comprises information about the areas in which the deviation value of a comparison point from the reference point exceeds the threshold value. (Paragraph 45: “aid reference value being determined in the same way as the actual measured values and being derived from an image of an object-free monitored region. If the comparison of the measured value with the reference value results in the measured value exceeding a defined measure, that is a threshold value, it is branched to step 7 where a reaction triggering device of the evaluation unit triggers a pre-defined reaction such as the emission of an alarm signal or the switching off of a machine.”)
Regarding claim 12, Meyer, as modified by Gagvani and Wutsefeld, discloses all the claimed invention. Wutsefeld further discloses forming the reference value is based on signal strength or a signal characteristic of the signals reflected from the object. (Fig.2 and Paragraph 48: “[0048] At step 11, the evaluation unit derives a value from the recognized structure which is invariant with respect to pre-determined image changes explained in connection with step 4 (FIG. 1) and stores this as the reference value.”; Paragraph 43: “Structure recognition is carried out in step 4 by a recognition device of the evaluation unit. The recognition device uses an algorithm for this purpose which is able to recognize structures such as line regions, grid regions or areal regions from the image stored in an image memory, that is to make a mathematical correlation between pixels which represent an object or a part of an object.”)
Relevant Prior Art Directed to State of Art
Wixson (U.S. 6434254 A1), “Method And Apparatus For Image-based Object Detection And Tracking”, teaches about a method and apparatus for detecting objects from a sequence of images of a scene containing an object by using two distinct methods for object detection. One is suited for well-lit scenes (e.g., daytime), while the other is suitable for poorly-lit scenes (e.g., nighttime) where the objects have lights mounted on them. It also teaches about image statistics regarding the objects being detected, and can be programmed to filter out "weak" detections that lie below a certain percentile in an observed statistical distribution of image measures. The specific percentile is determined based on whether the scene has been determined to be well- or poorly-lit and whether the scene contains shadows or not.
Kawabata et al (U.S. 20150220809 A1), “Image Inspecting Apparatus and Image Inspecting Program”, teaches about An image inspecting apparatus of the present invention is an apparatus for comparing first image data created as data representing a reference-image acting as an inspecting reference with second image data created as data representing an inspection-image acting as a target to automatically extract a difference point between the first image data and the second image data; comparing the image-matched first and second image data to detect a difference between the first and second image data; comparing the difference with a plurality of threshold values to produce difference point representing image data at each threshold value, and performing an image inspecting process using the produced difference point representing image data at each threshold value.
O’Callaghan (U.S. 20110293190 A1), “Image Processing for Change Detection”, teaches about the processing of image data defining a sequence of images to detect change in the images, especially (but not exclusively) motion of an object. A value is calculated for each pixel defining the spatial rate of change of homogeneity of the image data at that pixel. Different regions of pixels in each image are selected and the values within each region are concatenated to define a vector for each region. The vectors are then processed to compare corresponding regions in each image. The results of the comparison define a correlation map identifying areas in the images in which change has occurred.
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 Duy A Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-4887. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, ONEAL R MISTRY can be reached at (313)-446-4912. 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.
/DUY TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2674
/ONEAL R MISTRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2674