DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to arguments filed on December 8th, 2025. No changes to the claims have been made; hence, this Action has been made FINAL.
Any objection/rejections not mentioned in this Office Action have been withdrawn by the Examiner.
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 .
Priority
Applicant claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application 63/490802, filed March 17th, 2023. Claims 1-20 have been afforded the benefit of this earlier filing date.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
Regarding rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant argues, “Claims 1 and 14 respectfully comprises several steps of generating signals, such as the steps of generating the first synthetic signal, the second synthetic signal and the pseudo signal. The signals could not be generated by a human mind,” (emphasis original, page 2 of Remarks) and that the limitations of claims 1 and 14 “provide inventive concepts and are meaningful limitation that provide and improvement to the technical field,” (pages 3 and 4 of Remarks) with support drawn from Specification paragraphs [0002] and [0061].
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding claim 1, the inventive improvement is not present in the claim. While the Specification may intend an improvement to a machine’s power consumption when processing signals, the claim does not include any explicit or implicit description of the respective signal loss concealment algorithms’ “weight” or power demand, merely that one has higher concealment ability than another. The claim shows no other structural or technical limitation regarding the performance of the loss concealment algorithms or the combination of the resulting signals, and thus does not preclude the performance of those method steps in the human mind.
Regarding claim 14, there is a similar lack of structural or technical detail for the processing, generating and combining of signals - or the nature of the signals - that precludes performance in the human mind. For example, the claim could broadly describe a method for rewriting missing segments of text, wherein a ”signal” comprises strings of words, and an editor uses relevant segments of an article to replace missing paragraphs that have a similar voice to the original author.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
35 U.S.C. 102
Regarding claim 14, Applicant argues “Because Sung does not perform concealment to the current frame to generate another compensated frame (which is used to interpret the claimed compensation signal), and does not combine a result which is generated by that the predetermined duration has been copied to the current frame,” (page 7 of Remarks).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Applicant argues “Column 16, lines 54-57, line 66 through column 17, line 4 of Sung only disclose the frames to which the concealment is performed and the predetermined duration 850 is copied to the current frame, but has no relations with claims 17 and 18 of the present application.” (page 8 of Remarks).
Regarding claim 19, Applicant argues “Column 18, lines 35-38 of Sung only disclose that the matching segment 830 and do not mentions about lengths of any segment and any frame,” (page 9 of Remarks).
Examiner expresses gratitude to Applicant for providing diagrams as a clarifying measure alongside the arguments, and will provide similar visual aid regarding claim 14; however, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
For the interpretation of claim 14, Sung’s process and elements read under the broadest reasonable interpretation, wherein a replacement signal frame is created based on the contents of another frame. See the following diagram that illustrates the parallels between the claim and the teachings of Sung:
PNG
media_image1.png
481
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Sung’s Figure 8 shows that the predetermined duration 850 lies between matching segments 830, teaching that a portion of the target signal used to create a pseudo signal may be found either preceding or following a match part.
Regarding claim 19, Sung teaches a method wherein a pseudo part is copied from a reference part of another signal. Copied portions of a signal must necessarily be identical in length, therefore, the teachings of Sung read on the claim.
The claims are broadly written and are given their broadest reasonable interpretation; therefore, in accordance with the above reasoning, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 are maintained.
35 U.S.C. 103
Regarding the rejection of claim 20, Applicant argues “the claimed ‘reference part’ has specific functions, rather than just an ‘overlap segment’… Accordingly, the reference part in claim 20 is for generating a pseudo signal, which is for generating a pre-smooth signal,” (page 10 of Remarks).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wang teaches that a reference part may have variable length and gives motivation for a practitioner to use a window size (which may be substituted for or modify Sung’s “search segment”) that is larger than that needed for copying into a pre-smooth signal. Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite disembodied mathematical algorithms. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no features of the claims apply, rely on or otherwise use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations beyond mathematics may be embodied as a mental process, and therefore do not impose a meaningful transformation on the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “A signal loss compensation method, for compensating an input signal comprising (K+Y) lost signal units and at least one normal signal unit, comprising:compensating 1st to (K-1)th ones of the lost signal units by a first signal loss concealment algorithm to generate a first compensation signal and generating a first synthetic signal according to the first compensation signal;compensating (K+X+1)th to (K+Y)th ones of the lost signal units by a second signal loss concealment algorithm to generate a second compensation signal and generating a second synthetic signal according to the second compensation signal;compensating Kth to (K+X)th ones of the lost signal units by at least one of the first signal loss concealment algorithm and the second signal loss concealment algorithm to generate a third synthetic signal;generating an output signal according to the first synthetic signal, the second synthetic signal, the third synthetic signal and the normal signal unit;wherein K and Y are positive integers, X is a natural number, and Y is larger than X;wherein a signal loss concealment ability of the second signal loss concealment algorithm is higher than a signal loss concealment ability of the first signal loss concealment algorithm.”
The limitations of “compensating 1st to (K-1)th ones of the lost signal units,” “compensating (K+X+1)th to (K+Y)th ones of the lost signal units,” and “compensating Kth to (K+X)th ones of the lost signal units” as drafted cover mathematical calculations. Taken individually or as a whole, these limitations describe setting numeric values to determine a span width.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be performed mentally, and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the claim depends from claim 1, and thus recites the limitations of claim 1, “wherein the step of compensating Kth to (K+X) th ones of the lost signal units comprises:compensating the Kth to (K+X)th ones of the lost signal units by the first signal loss concealment algorithm to generate a third compensation signal, and compensating the Kth to the (K+X)th ones of the lost signal units by the second signal loss concealment algorithm to generate a fourth compensation signal;generating the third synthetic signal according to the third compensation signal and the fourth compensation signal.”
The limitation of “compensating the Kth to (K+X)th ones of the lost signal units” as drafted covers mathematical calculations. Taken individually, or as a whole with claim 1, these limitations describe acts which are equivalent to human mental work of performing calculations. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the claim depends from claim 2, and thus recites the limitations of claims 1 and 2, “further comprising: adding the third compensation signal and the fourth compensation signal, to generate the third synthetic signal.”
The limitation of “adding the third compensation signal and the fourth compensation signal” as drafted covers further mathematical calculations as recited in claims 1 and 2. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the claim depends from claim 1, and thus recites the limitations of claim 1, “wherein X is 0.”
The limitation of “wherein X is 0” as drafted covers further mathematical calculations as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the claim depends from claim 1, and thus recites the limitations of claim 1, “further comprising: performing a signal smooth method, to generate the first synthetic signal according to a target part of the normal signal unit and the first compensation signal, wherein the target part is previous to the 1st lost signal unit.”
The limitation of “performing a signal smooth method… wherein the target part is previous to the 1st lost signal unit,” as drafted covers further mathematical calculations as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the claim depends from claim 5, and thus recites the limitations of claims 1 and 5, “wherein the signal smooth method comprises:generating a pseudo signal according to a reference part of the target part, wherein the reference part comprises a reserved part.wherein the step of generating the output signal comprises:combining the pseudo signal and the target part to generate a pre-smooth signal; andcombining the pre-smooth signal and the first compensation signal to generate a portion of the output signal.”
The limitations of “generating a pseudo signal according to a reference part of the target part” “combining the pseudo signal and the target part,” and “combining the pre-smooth signal and the first compensation signal” as drafted cover mental activities which can be performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Taken individually, or as a whole, these limitations describe acts which are equivalent to human mental work of drawing lines or performing calculations. For example, these limitations may be embodied by an individual filling in missing pieces of a waveform – or even a text transcript – by guessing at the missing data. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the claim depends from claim 6, and thus recites the limitations of claims 1, 5 and 6, “wherein a signal length of the reference part is larger than a signal length of the reserved part.”
The limitation of “a signal length of the reference part is larger than a signal length of the reserved part,” as drafted covers further mathematical calculations as recited in claims 1, 5 and 6. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the claim depends from claim 6, and thus recites the limitations of claims 1, 5 and 6, “wherein the step of generating the pseudo signal comprises:searching a match part of the target part according to the reference part, wherein signal characteristics of the match part matches signal characteristics of the reference part; andgenerating the pseudo signal according to the match part.”
The limitations of “searching a match part of the target part,” and “generating the pseudo signal” as drafted cover mental activities which can be performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Taken individually, or as a whole with claim 6, these limitations describe the same acts of drawing or performing calculations. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the claim depends from claim 8, and thus recites the limitations of claims 1, 5-6 and 8, “wherein the pseudo signal comprises a first pseudo part and a second pseudo part following the first pseudo part.”
The limitation of “the pseudo signal comprises a first pseudo part and a second pseudo part” as drafted do not add significantly more that the mental process recited by claims 1, 5-6 and 8. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the claim depends from claim 9, and thus recites the limitations of claims 1, 5-6 and 8-9, “wherein the first pseudo part is not comprised in the match part and is previous to the match part, and the second pseudo part is comprised in the match part.”
The limitations of “the first pseudo part is not comprised in the match part,” and “the second pseudo part is comprised in the match part” as drafted do not add significantly more that the mental process recited by claims 1, 5-6 and 8-9. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the claim depends from claim 9, and thus recites the limitations of claims 1, 5-6 and 8-9, “wherein the first pseudo part is comprised in the match part, the second pseudo part is not comprised in the match part and follows the match part.”
The limitations of “the first pseudo part is comprised in the match part,” and “the second pseudo part is not comprised in the match part” as drafted do not add significantly more that the mental process recited by claims 1, 5-6 and 8-9. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the claim depends from claim 9, and thus recites the limitations of claims 1, 5-6 and 8-9, “wherein a length of the first pseudo part is identical with a length of the reserved part.”
The limitation of “a length of the first pseudo part is identical with a length of the reserved part” as drafted does not add significantly more that the mental process recited by claims 1, 5-6 and 8-9. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the claim depends from claim 6, and thus recites the limitations of claims 1, 5 and 6, “wherein a length of the reference part is longer than a length of the pseudo signal.”
The limitation of “a length of the reference part is longer than a length of the pseudo signal,” as drafted covers further mathematical calculations as recited in claims 1, 5 and 6. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, being similar in scope to claim 6, is rejected under the same rationale applied to claim 6.
Regarding claims 15-20, claims 15-20 mirror the limitations of claims 8-13, and thus are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 10,242,679 to Sung et al. (hereinafter, "Sung").
Regarding claim 14, Sung teaches A signal smooth method, comprising:processing a target signal via a signal loss concealment algorithm to generate a compensation signal (column 10, lines 35-39, "The scaler 290 may apply gain scaling to the previous good frame to predict spectral coefficients of the erased frame. The scaler 290 may also apply adaptive muting to the erased frame and a random sign to predicted spectral coefficients according to characteristics of an input signal.");generating a pseudo signal according to a reference part of the target signal, wherein the reference part comprises a reserved part (column 18, lines 35-38, "Next, by referring to a position index of the matching segment obtained as a result of the search, a predetermined duration starting from an end of the matching segment is copied to the current frame that is an erasure frame.");combining the pseudo signal and the target signal to generate a pre-smooth signal (column 18, lines 45-50, " At this time, a duration corresponding to a window length is copied to the current frame. When the copy starting from the end of the matching segment is shorter than the window length, the copy, starting from the end of the matching segment will be repeatedly copied into the current frame.); andcombining the pre-smooth signal and the compensation signal to generate a smooth signal (column 18, lines 51-54, "Next, smoothing processing may be performed through [Overlap and Add] to minimize the discontinuity between the current frame and adjacent frames to generate a time domain signal on the concealed current frame.").
Regarding claim 15, Sung teaches The signal smooth method of claim 14, wherein the step of generating the pseudo signal comprises:searching a match part of the target signal according to the reference part, wherein signal characteristics of the match part matches signal characteristics of the reference part (column 18, lines 26-30, "First, a matching segment, which has the maximum correlation to, i.e. is most similar to, a search segment adjacent to a current frame is searched for from a decoded signal in a previous good frame from among N past good frames stored in a buffer."); andgenerating the pseudo signal according to the match part (column 18, lines 51-54, "Next, smoothing processing may be performed through [Overlap and Add] to minimize the discontinuity between the current frame and adjacent frames to generate a time domain signal on the concealed current frame.").
Regarding claim 16, Sung teaches The signal smooth method of claim 15, wherein the pseudo signal comprises a first pseudo part and a second pseudo part following the first pseudo part (column 18, lines 35-50, "Next, by referring to a position index of the matching segment obtained as a result of the search, a predetermined duration starting from an end of the matching segment is copied to the current frame that is an erasure frame. In addition, when a previous frame is a random erased frame and phase matching erasure concealment processing is performed on the previous frame, by referring to a position index of the matching segment obtained as a result of the search, a predetermined duration starting from an end of the matching segment is copied to the current frame that is an erasure frame. At this time, a duration corresponding to a window length is copied to the current frame. When the copy starting from the end of the matching segment is shorter than the window length, the copy, starting from the end of the matching segment will be repeatedly copied into the current frame."). By copying at least two durations into the pseudo part, Sung teaches a replacement frame comprising at least two distinct parts.
Regarding claim 17, The signal smooth method of claim 16, wherein the first pseudo part is not comprised in the match part and is previous to the match part, and the second pseudo part is comprised in the match part (column 16, line 66 through column 17, line 4, "The second concealment unit 630 may perform phase matching concealment processing on a next good frame. That is, when a previous frame is an erased frame and phase matching concealment processing is performed for the previous frame, phase matching concealment processing may be performed on a next good frame."). By teaching phase matching performed for a previous erased frame, Sung describes a scenario in which the replacement frame’s parts precede a known good or reference frame.
Regarding claim 18, Sung teaches The signal smooth method of claim 16, wherein the first pseudo part is comprised in the match part, the second pseudo part is not comprised in the match part and follows the match part (column 16, lines 54-57, "The phase matching tool may generate the time domain signal for the current erased frame by copying the phase-matched time domain signal obtained from the previous good frames."). By teaching phase matching for a current frame based on a previous frame, Sung describes a scenario in which the replacement frame’s parts follow a known good or reference frame.
Regarding claim 19, The signal smooth method of claim 16, wherein a length of the first pseudo part is identical with a length of the reserved part (column 18, lines 35-38, "Next, by referring to a position index of the matching segment obtained as a result of the search, a predetermined duration starting from an end of the matching segment is copied to the current frame that is an erasure frame."). By copying the predetermined duration, Sung teaches a reserved part that is the same size as the first pseudo part.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0306980 to Wang et al. (hereinafter, "Wang").
Regarding claim 20, Sung does not explicitly teach “The signal smooth method of claim 14, wherein a length of the reference part is longer than a length of the pseudo signal,” and thus, Wang is introduced.
Wang teaches a length of the reference part is longer than a length of the pseudo signal (paragraph [0069], "Another parameter associated with window functions is a hop length, also referred to as a shift width or a shift length, which determines the amount of overlap between adjacent frames or blocks of the signal. If shift length is smaller than the window width, overlap exists between frames. However, if shift length is larger than the window width, no overlap exists between adjacent frames."). Under the broadest reasonable interpretations, the disclosed “reference part” is taken as an overlap segment or subframe, which serves the same function as Wang’s “shift length” in that it serves to set an interval shared by a received frame and a replacement frame.
Sung and Wang are considered analogous because they are each concerned with signal enhancement and replacement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Sung with the teachings of Wang for the purpose of improving processing efficiency. Given that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be considered allowable, but for the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is as follows:
U.S. Patent 12,380,897 to Pascual et al. discloses “a method for packet loss concealment of an incomplete audio signal where the incomplete audio signal includes a substitute signal portion replacing an original signal portion of a complete audio signal. The method includes obtaining a representation of the incomplete audio signal and inputting the representation of the incomplete audio signal to an encoder neural network trained to predict a latent representation of a complete audio signal given a representation of an incomplete audio signal.”
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0323567 to Gao discloses “a method of improving packet loss concealment for speech coding while still profiting from a pitch prediction or Long-Term Prediction (LTP), the method comprising: having an LTP excitation component; having a second excitation component; determining an initial energy of the LTP excitation component for every subframe within a frame of speech signal by using a regular method of minimizing a coding error or a weighted coding error at an encoder.”
China Invention Application 111370006 to Schnabel et al. discloses “an apparatus for generating an error concealment signal includes an LPC representation generator for generating a first alternate LPC representation and a different second alternate LPC representation. Furthermore, an LPC synthesizer is provided for filtering the first codebook information using a first replacement LPC representation to obtain a first replacement signal and filtering the second different codebook information using a second replacement LPC representation to obtain a second replacement signal. The output of the LPC synthesizer is combined by a replacement signal combiner that combines the first and second replacement signals to obtain an error concealment signal.”
Korean Invention Application 20210143177 to Tomasek et al. discloses “According to an embodiment, the two or more error concealment modes may include, for example, exactly two error concealment modes, wherein a first of the exactly two error concealment modes, for example, full frame loss a concealment mode, wherein the second of exactly two error concealment modes is a partial frame loss concealment mode.”
“Monte Carlo Smoothing with Application to Audio Signal Enhancement” by Fong et al. discloses “methods for applying Monte Carlo filtering and smoothing for estimation of unobserved states in a nonlinear state-space model. By exploiting the statistical structure of the model, we develop a Rao–Blackwellized particle smoother. Due to the lengthy nature of real signals, we suggest processing the data in blocks, and a block-based smoother algorithm is developed for this purpose.”
“Smoothing Neural Network for Robust Sparse Signal Recovery” by Wang et al. discloses, “a smoothing approximation-based neural network is developed based on the penalty method.”
When the closes prior art is taken in combination, they fail to teach or suggest the invention on claim 1. At best, the references of record would provide a neural-network based system for performing loss concealment, possibly with prediction methods. The references would not provide a system that combines multiple distinct methods for performing loss concealment on the same frame. Accordingly, the references do not teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent 5,907,822 to Prieto, Jr. et al.
U.S. Patent 7,693,710 to Jelinek et al.
U.S. Patent 8,731,908 to Kapilow.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0119098 to Zhan et al.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0146695 to Kim et al.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0222420 to Su et al.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0122672 to Tomasek et al.
European Patent Specification EP 3023983 to Zaunschirm et al.
Spain Invention Publication ES 2387943 to Virette et al.
Singapore Invention Publication SG 10201700846 to Bruhn et al.
"Audio packet loss concealment in a combined MDCT-MDST domain” by Ofir et al.
"Linear prediction based packet loss concealment algorithm for PCM coded speech” by Gunduzhan et al.
“Smoothing strategy along with conjugate gradient algorithm for signal reconstruction” by Wu et al.
“A smoothing neural network for minimization l1-lp in sparse signal reconstruction with measurement noises” by Zhao et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN T SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-6643. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, PIERRE-LOUIS DESIR can be reached at (571) 272-7799. 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.
/SEAN THOMAS SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2659
/PIERRE LOUIS DESIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2659