DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “hologram generation unit” and “display control unit” in claim 1, incorporated by reference into claims 2-11, “property amount change unit” in claim 4, “position detection unit” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a hologram generation unit that generates a hologram to reproduce and electronic book as a stereoscopic image of a book” in lines 2-3 (Applicant’s specification at most discloses merely reading 3D data and then generating 3D display data from the 3D data, but is devoid of any description as the process for actually performing said generation of 3D data. Applicant’s specification, PG-Pub 2024/0053706 A1 (hereinafter “US PG-Pub”) - Fig. 1 and ¶70 discloses control unit 17 realizes the hologram generation unit 17a generates a hologram; Fig. 5 and ¶¶83-85, merely stating 3D display data is generated, without anything else).
Original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP 2161.01(I).
In this particular application, there is no description of how the system actually generates a hologram to reproduce and electronic book as a stereoscopic image of a book. It is merely taken as a given that it occurs. Accordingly, the claim fails the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 2-11 depend from claim 1 and therefore fail the written description requirement of claim 1 for the same reasons set forth above.
Claim 12 recites “an electronic book display program that causes a computer to realize: a hologram generation unit that generates a hologram to reproduce an electronic book as a stereoscopic image of a book”, which is substantially the same language as claim 1, for which the specification fails to adequately describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. As such, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 set forth above.
Claims 11-17, depend from claim 12 and therefore fail the written description requirement of claim 12 for the same reasons set forth above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-5, 8, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “wherein the hologram is to reproduce a real image of the book”. The meaning of “a real image” is unclear, and the specification does not clarify the term in a definite manner to reasonably apprise one of ordinary skill in the art as to the intended scope of the claim. In particular, does the hologram merely redisplay a real image of a book, where the book was scanned or imaged directly and then reproduced? Or is the textual content of the book enough to be considered a real image of the book? Or alternatively, is the intended meaning to reproduce a three-dimensional image of a book, as in showing a bound book as it looks like in reality, as opposed to what typical e-readers show which is merely page images? Or under an even broader interpretation based on the plain meaning of the claim, is the claim merely reciting that the displayed image of a book is a real image, as in viewable to a user as opposed to merely stored data in a computer that is virtual data of a book but not visual to a person? As such, the claim is rendered indefinite. For purposes of examination, the mere display of a real image is taken as the interpretation (although cited reference reads on the narrower interpretations).
Claims 3-5 and 8 depend on 2 and fail to further clarify the claim language. As such, the claims are indefinite for the same reasons as claim 2 above.
Regarding claims 13-16, the claims have substantially the same claim language as claims 2-5, and as such the claims are rejected as indefinite for the same reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Ueno et al. (US 2013/0031472 A1) in view of
Riedel (US 2015/0264339 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ueno discloses:
An electronic book display system (Ueno, Abstract, Figs. 1-2 and ¶50) comprising:
A hologram generation unit that generates a hologram to reproduce an electronic book as a stereoscopic image of a book [Applicant’s specification, Fig. 1 and ¶70 of US PG-Pub discloses control unit 17 realizes the hologram generation unit 17a generates a hologram; Fig. 5 and ¶¶83-85 discuss the corresponding algorithm for generating 3D data from “3D book data” – this appears to teach the corresponding structure of the “hologram generation unit” as merely a processor programmed to read 3D data and form 3D images for display as a stereoscopic image] (Ueno, ¶58: display 3D object such as an image or shape to appear as if it is 3D using disparity, using stereoscopic vision; ¶61: CPU implementing functions using programs/instructions;¶¶64-65: object data 24b contains 3D object data, e.g. 3D object displayed as a book, used to display a three-dimensional object, and changing the 3D object according to a detected operation; ¶83 discloses computing positional information of 3D object, determining difference for right eye and left eye images, used to stereoscopically display the 3D object); and
A display control unit that causes [Applicant’s specification, Fig. 1 and ¶70 of US PG-Pub discloses control unit 17 realizes a display control unit 17b that causes display, interpreted merely a processor programmed to control display of an image] (Ueno, Fig. 3 and ¶65: 3D object displayed as book; ¶76: the control unit 22 three-dimensionally displays a book on the touch panel 32)
Ueno does not explicitly disclose using a spatial light modulator (SLM) for displaying the 3D object images.
Riedel discloses:
A display control unit that causes a spatial light modulator (SLM) to display the hologram generated by the hologram generation unit. (Riedel, Fig. 17 and ¶70: A processor, not shown, connected to the display 411 receives the information from the tracking sensors and performs holographic synthesis calculations for the virtual objects or scenes and determines a complex wave-field for the objects or scenes to be represented by the spatial light modulator-based display, spatial light modulator-based digital holographic display to display 3D objects, where “The display creates a 3D wave-field holographic image that is visible only within a viewing zone, called a "viewing window" 428, at the location of the eyes 426 of the user. The display can produce images with true depth of focus that corresponds with the geometries of the virtual 3D objects or scenes.”)
Both Ueno and Riedel are directed to interactive augmented reality systems for displaying an object for interaction by a user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the augmented reality system for providing a stereoscopic display of an interactive 3D virtual book as provided by Ueno, by utilizing the stereoscopic display for holographic interactive 3D object as provided by Riedel, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification merely substitutes one known display device for providing stereoscopic 3D image display of an interactive object for another, yielding predictable results of providing the virtual interactive object using a known SLM display, a known type of display for such purposes at the time of the effective filing date of applicant’s invention. The modification also results in an improved augmented reality interactive object by providing an improved controlled display of a 3D object by including a full-resolution picture that is comfortable to view, a highly intuitive and responsive interaction interface (see e.g. Riedel, ¶71).
Regarding claim 12, Ueno discloses:
A computer readable non-transitory storage medium storing an electronic book display program that causes a computer to realize operations (Ueno, ¶¶61-63, including nonvolatile memory storing programs and data, where control unit/CPU reads stored program)
Further regarding claim 12, the system of claim 1 performs the operations of claim 12 and therefore claim 12 is further rejected based on the same rationale as claim 1 set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, Ueno modified by Riedel further discloses:
Wherein the hologram is to reproduce a real image of the book (Applicant’s specification, PG-PUB ¶58 defines “real-image book” as “a component of a book reproduced as an image”) (Ueno, ¶58: display 3D object such as an image or shape to appear as if it is 3D using disparity, using stereoscopic vision; ¶¶64-65: object data 24b contains 3D object data, e.g. 3D object displayed as a book, used to display a three-dimensional object, and changing the 3D object according to a detected operation; See Fig. 10 and ¶110: stereoscopic display of a “real image of the book”)
Regarding claim 13, the limitations included from parent claim are rejected based on the rationale for parent claim set forth above. Further regarding the claim, the system of claim 2 performs the operations of claim 13 and therefore claim 13 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 2 set forth above.
Regarding claim 3, Ueno further discloses:
Regarding the electronic book, a property amount, as an amount of property of a component of the book, is set, (Ueno, ¶64: action data 24c contains information for how an operation performed for the displayed 3D object acts on the three-dimensional object – includes moving speed in Fig. 4 – i.e. speed amount; ¶65: properties related to 3D book) and
The hologram generation unit generates the hologram such that a page of the book is turned at a speed corresponding to the property amount (Ueno, Fig. 4 and ¶69: information indicates how operations performed for pages contained in a book are acted on the pages; ¶70: As illustrated in FIG. 4, the action of the operation performed for the page changes according to conditions such as a status, a moving direction, a moving range, a moving speed, and rigidity; ¶71 discloses based on the moving range of fingers, pinched pages are changed either as if turned or according to gravity)
Regarding claim 14, the limitations included from parent claim are rejected based on the rationale for parent claim set forth above. Further regarding the claim, the system of claim 3 performs the operations of claim 14 and therefore claim 14 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 3 set forth above.
Regarding claim 4, Ueno further discloses:
A property amount change unit that changes the property amount set to the electronic book according to an instruction (Ueno, ¶71 discloses based on the moving range of fingers – i.e. user instruction - pinched pages are changed either as if turned or according to gravity)
Regarding claim 15, the limitations included from parent claim are rejected based on the rationale for parent claim set forth above. Further regarding the claim, the system of claim 4 performs the operations of claim 15 and therefore claim 15 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 4 set forth above.
Regarding claim 5, Ueno further discloses:
Wherein, in a case where an appearance of the book is changed according to an instruction so as to change a type of the component, the hologram generation unit sets the property amount corresponding to the changed appearance to the electronic book (Ueno, Figs. 11, ¶¶111-112: When it is detected that the front cover and the pages are located between the finger F1 and the finger F2, the mobile phone 1 sets the front cover and the pages located between the finger F1 and the finger F2 to be in the selected state – i.e. type of component includes front cover, and ¶112: “When such actions of the finger F1 and the finger F2 are detected, the mobile phone 1 changes the front cover and the pages in the selected state according to the movement based on the action data 24c. Specifically, the mobile phone 1 changes an angle of the front cover and the pages in the selected state according to the movement of the finger F1 and the finger F2.”; ¶113: mobile phone changes book according to movement based on action data 24c, where book is changed so that the innermost page of the pages is the selected state is the top of the pages; Note Fig. 4 shows opening/closing of book as one setting vs. bound portion of pages as another setting; ¶115: When such actions of the finger F1 and the finger F2 are detected, the mobile phone 1 changes the pages in the selected state according to the movement based on the action data 24c – in other words, the book appearance is changed to opened based on instruction of user input, such that now the component type is innermost page as the selected state, resulting in inner pages to be moved according to the properties 24c)
Regarding claim 16, the limitations included from parent claim are rejected based on the rationale for parent claim set forth above. Further regarding the claim, the system of claim 5 performs the operations of claim 16 and therefore claim 16 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 5 set forth above.
Regarding claim 6, Ueno further discloses:
Wherein the hologram generation unit can generate the hologram in which, while a display content of a page of the book is visible from a first viewpoint (Ueno, Fig. 3 and ¶65: 3D object includes front cover, back cover, spine cover, and plurality of pages; ¶87 discloses that 3D object can be rotated – see Fig. 10 showing one view of book vs. Fig. 15 showing different angle of view, or Fig. 18 showing other side of book, hiding binding)
Ueno teaches displaying an object with different 3D perspectives to a user, such that some perspectives show or hide parts of the 3D book object respectively. However, Ueno does not explicitly disclose that the hologram content is visible or not visible from viewpoints with respect to the SLM, as claimed. This feature of presenting a 3D object that allows different perspectives of the object based on a user’s view point within an SLM, however, is a known technique.
Riedel further discloses:
Wherein the hologram generation unit can generate the hologram in which, while a display content of part of object is visible from a first viewpoint with respect to the SLM, at least a part of an area of an exterior of the object that is not visible from the first viewpoint is visible from a second viewpoint with respect to the SLM (
(Riedel, ¶51: tracking user eye locations; Figs. 6A to 6C and ¶54: perspective views form viewpoint of user moving from left to right in front of display system, particularly 6A to 6C shows different sides of object visible from different user perspectives, and hidden in the other)
Both Ueno and Riedel are directed to interactive augmented reality systems for displaying an object for interaction by a user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the augmented reality system for providing a stereoscopic display of an interactive 3D virtual book as provided by Ueno, by utilizing the stereoscopic display for holographic interactive 3D object as provided by Riedel, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification merely substitutes one known display device for providing stereoscopic 3D image display of an interactive object for another, yielding predictable results of providing the virtual interactive object using a known SLM display, a known type of display for such purposes at the time of the effective filing date of applicant’s invention. The modification also results in an improved augmented reality interactive object by providing an improved controlled display of a 3D object by including a full-resolution picture that is comfortable to view, a highly intuitive and responsive interaction interface (see e.g. Riedel, ¶71).
Regarding claim 17, the limitations included from parent claim are rejected based on the rationale for parent claim set forth above. Further regarding the claim, the system of claim 6 performs the operations of claim 17 and therefore claim 17 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 6 set forth above.
Regarding 7, Ueno modified by Riedel further discloses:
Wherein the hologram generation unit can generate a first hologram that is the hologram in which, while the display content of the page of the book is visible from the first viewpoint, at least a part of the area of the exterior of the book that is not visible from the first viewpoint is visible from the second viewpoint, and can generate a second hologram that is the hologram that is different from the first hologram in that a book cover covering at least a part of the exterior of the book is attached to the book, and in the second hologram, the book cover covers at least a part of the area of the exterior of the book that is not visible from the first viewpoint and is visible from the second viewpoint in the first hologram (Ueno, Fig. 15 and ¶125 discloses displaying a first hologram where the display content of the page of the book is visible from a first view point showing a selected page range at a particular angle; Fig. 10-11 and ¶¶110-113 dhow the book from a second viewpoint, where the exterior cover of the book is visible not visible from viewpoint 15, alternatively open position in Fig. 11, with cover covering at least an area of the exterior of the book)
Regarding claim 8, Ueno further discloses:
Further comprising a position detection unit that detects a spatial position of an object in a region for a real image of the book to detect an operation by the object with respect to the real image of the book that is reproduced by the hologram, wherein, in a case where the position detection unit detects an operation by the object with respect to the real image of the book, the hologram generation unit generates the hologram in which the real image of the book is changed according to the operation detected by the position detection unit. (Ueno, ¶77: detecting operation performed for the book; Figs. 6-9; ¶¶80-81: operation performed using detection of fingers movement so that 3D object OB1 is located between fingers, based on images photographed by imaging units 40 and 42 and checking positions and actions of determined objects against shape of 3D object to detect operation performed for 3D object; ¶87: rotation based on fingers; Figs. 10-11 and ¶¶111-113 discloses detected finger movements change book and pages; Also see Fig. 12, ¶114: finger movement to move page)
Regarding claim 9, Ueno further discloses:
wherein the hologram generation unit generates an appearance of the book to be an appearance corresponding to how much the electronic book has been read (Ueno, Figs. 11-13 show pages of book representing location within book based on page turns; ¶121: As a result, the user not only reads the book by turning page by page from the beginning, but can also easily find out a desired site from electronic publications through an operation similar to an operation performed for an actual book.)
Regarding claim 10, Ueno further discloses:
wherein, in a case where an operation of breaking a page of the book is executed, the hologram generation unit generates the hologram in which the page is broken. (Fig. 21 and ¶140: The mobile phone 1 may accept an operation of cutting out a page as an operation for pages. FIG. 21 is a diagram illustrating an example of the operation of cutting out a page. At Step SI1 in FIG. 21, the user pinches an edge of a page 50d with the finger F1 and the finger F2 to move the finger F1 and the finger F2 so that the distance to the bound portion of the pages is increased. When such actions of the finger F1 and the finger F2 are detected, the mobile phone 1 changes the page 50d according to the movement based on the action data 24c. Specifically, as illustrated at Step SI2, the mobile phone 1 tears the page 50d to be separated from the book 50.)
Regarding claim 11, Ueno further discloses:
wherein, in a case where an operation of folding a page of the book is executed, the hologram generation unit generates the hologram in which the page is folded. (Ueno, Fig. 22 and ¶141 discloses operation including folding of page, as shown in SJ2; Fig. 23 shows folded page between fingers in step SK1; Also Note ¶190 discloses operation performed on an object can include folding, e.g. folding news page)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fujimoto (US 2016/0011728 A1) – discloses user interface for displaying and controlling a virtual book, such as page turning, using touch points and turning at specific speeds based on input (see e.g. Abstract and Fig. 4).
Choi et al. (US 2022/0084268 A1) – discloses related art dealing with displaying book images, including a digital twin bookshelf for interactive control by a user (see e.g. Fig. 7 and ¶9)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A BEUTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DANIEL HAJNIK can be reached at 571-272-7642. 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.
/WILLIAM A BEUTEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616