Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This Office Action is in response to amendment filed on 11/18/2025. Claims 1-15 were previously pending. Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 3.1. Independent claim 1:
3.1.1. Applicant argues: Atarius does not teach “a system for restricting a bit rate for enhanced voice services:” (Remarks, Page 2).
Examiner respectfully disagrees: Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “a system for restricting a bit rate for enhanced voice services” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Therefore, the claim phrase "a system for restricting a bit rate for enhanced voice services (EVS)” in the preamble is unlikely to carry weight and limit the claim scope. The phrase "for enhanced voice services" serves as an "intended use" or purpose of the system, rather than a necessary structural component. If the claim body defines the components (e.g., a server, processor, memory) that perform the restricting, the preamble is merely setting the stage.
3.1.2. Applicant argues: Atarius does not teach “a communication server communicatively coupled to a communication network, wherein the communication server comprises one or more processors coupled with a memory, and wherein the memory stores instructions which when executed by the one or more processors causes the communication server to” (Remarks, Pages 2-3).
Examiner respectfully disagrees: Please refer to #3.1.1.
3.1.3. Applicant argues: Atarius does not to teach “receive a data packet from a user equipment (UE) in communication with the communication server, wherein the data packet comprises a bit rate value of an EVS codec” (Remarks, Page 3).
Examiner respectfully disagrees: Atarius discloses EVS codec operation with examples of bitrates and bandwidths and explains encoding and demodulation of audio signals into EVS packets per standard specifications (e.g. ETSI TS 126 441 V16.0.0 (2020-08)).
Atarius, [0006] specifically outlines a process for EVS encoding, includes: encoding an audio signal to obtain an encoded audio signal and a bitrate associated with the encoded audio signal; establishing a source format for the encoded audio signal based on the bitrate; reformatting the encoded audio signal with a pre-selected pattern to generate a packet; modulating the packet to generate a modulated waveform; and transmitting the modulated waveform to an audio destination, wherein the audio destination is an audio consumer. Atarius, [0007] outlines a process for EVS decoding including obtaining a data rate associated with a packet; discarding one or more pre-selected patterns from the packet to recover an encoded audio signal based on the data rate; decoded audio signal to an audio destination.
While the EVS codec itself is defined by 3GPP standards (see “ETSI TS 126 441 V16.0.0 (2020-08)) as noted in the results, this specific disclosure of Atarius pertains to methods for handling these packets in network environments. Please refer to the comparison of “bit rate value” and supported bandwidth of Atarius, Table 1, [0045] and Specification, Table 1, [0046].
Atarius, Table 1, [0045]
PNG
media_image1.png
265
340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Specification, Table 1, [0046]
PNG
media_image2.png
150
314
media_image2.png
Greyscale
3.1.4. Applicant argues: Atarius does not teach “compare the “bit rate value” of the received data packet to at least one of “predefined bit rate configurations” (Remarks, Pages 4-5).
Examiner respectfully disagrees: In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “predefined bit rate configurations“) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 does not differentiate between “predefined bit rate configuration” and 'predefined bit rate value'. Applicant is suggested to amend the claim to clearly define a “'predefined bit rate configuration” as [Specification, FIG.4, [0072-76]], which is structurally/functionally distinct from a mere bit rate value."
Specification, Table 1, [0046]
PNG
media_image2.png
150
314
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Specification, FIG.4, [0072-76]
PNG
media_image3.png
155
323
media_image3.png
Greyscale
3.1.5. Applicant argues: Atarius does not teach “alter the bit rate value of the received data packet when the bit rate value of the received data packet matches with the at least one of predefined bit rate configurations for enhancing the EVS” (Remarks, Pages 5-6).
Examiner respectfully disagrees: Please refer to #3.1.4.
In response to applicant’s argument that Ragot is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem (“alter the bit rate value”) with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention.
It is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that “reformatting the encoded audio signal with a pre-selected pattern to generate a packet” implicitly includes the process of “altering the bitrate by fitting more or less data (bits) into the same time frame”. Ragot, [0025] teaches “the choice of bitrate to use”.
Therefore combined Atarius, [0006-7]-Ragot, [0025] teaches “adapt the bit rate of choice”
3.2. Independent claim 8:
Please refer to #3.1.
3.3. Independent claim 14:
Please refer to #3.1.
3.4. Independent claim 15:
Please refer to #3.1.
3.5. Applicant argues the dependent claims 2-7 and 9-13 are allowable due to their dependencies from allegedly allowable independent claims (Remarks, Page 7).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. See the Claim Rejections section for details of how the prior art maps to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4.1. 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 of this title, 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.
4.2. 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.
4.3. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atarius, (US 2016/0323425 A1) in view of Ragot et al. (“Ragot”, US 2021/0258363 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Atarius discloses a system for restricting a bit rate for enhanced voice services (EVS), the system comprising:
a communication server communicatively coupled to a communication network, wherein the communication server comprises one or more processors coupled with a memory, and wherein the memory stores instructions which when executed by the one or more processors causes the communication server to (Atarius, FIG.12, [0090]: various wireless communication networks may include EVS over 4G-LTE, 3G (WCDMA and cdma2000), WLAN (e.g., WiFi) and Broadband Fixed Network. FIG.15, apparatus 1500, processor 1504. memory 1505, processing system 1514, [0093-94]: apparatus 1500 (“server”) employing a processing system 1514; includes the memory 1505 storing instructions, when executed by the processor 1504, causes the processing system 1514 to perform the various functions):
receive a data packet from a user equipment (UE) in communication with the communication server, wherein the data packet comprises a bit rate value of an EVS codec (Atarius, [0077-78]: receive a packet which is a formatted group of bits which contains an encoded audio signal within the formatted group of bits. [0046-47], Table 2, [0065-66]: EVS encoder which encodes audio signal is an EVS packet which may be a formatted group of bits with an associated EVS bitrate per EVS standards);
compare the bit rate value of the received data packet to at least one of predefined bit rate configurations (Atarius, [0047], Table 2, [0081]: discards one or more pre-selected patterns from the packet to recover an encoded audio signal based on the data rate); and
when the bit rate value of the received data packet matches with the at least one of predefined bit rate configurations for enhancing the EVS (Atarius, FIG.3, [0048]: shows EVS at 13.2 kbps may have better music quality over AMR-WB at 23.85 bit rate).
Atarius does not expressly disclose
alter the bit rate value of the received data packet.
Ragot discloses (Ragot, [0025]: the adaptation decision is made by the remote receiver. Combined Atarius, FIG.15, [0093-94]-Ragot, [0025] teaches the adaptation decision is made by the remote receiver (“server”)).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate “adapting bitrate” of Ragot into the invention of Atarius. The suggestion/motivation would have been to implement the “adapting bitrate” to enable compatibility for EVS coverage with possible increase in delay and decrease in audio quality due to the need for transcoding between different formats (Ragot, [0116]). Including “EVS codec” of Ragot into the invention of Atarius was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Ragot.
Regarding Claim 2, Atarius-Ragot discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the predefined bit rate configurations comprise multiple feasible variations for bit rate values of the EVS codec (Atarius, Table 1, [0045-46]: shows EVS bitrates and supported bandwidths. Each EVS bitrate in Table 1 is mapped to corresponding supported bandwidths).
Regarding Claim 3, Atarius-Ragot discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the EVS codec enhances communication quality of voice services (Atarius, FIG.3, [0048]: shows that there may be a quality improvement for EVS music performance over AMR at similar bit rates. For example, EVS at 13.2 kbps may have better music performance over AMR-WB at twice the bit rate).
Regarding Claim 4, Atarius does not expressly disclose the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein a maximum bit rate of the EVS codec is reduced to a predetermined value when the bit rate value of the received data packet matches to at least one of the predefined bit rate configurations.
Ragot discloses (Ragot, [0053]: The bitrate estimate performed at the receiver is generally effective in reducing the encoding bitrate. The iSAC codec produces an average bitrate that is able to be adjusted relatively finely between a minimum bitrate and a maximum bitrate (for example 10 to 32 kbit/s or 10 to 56 kbit/s), whereas a multi-rate codec operating in accordance with a defined set of discrete bitrates, such as an AMR, AMR-WB or EVS codec).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate “adapting bitrate” of Ragot into the invention of Atarius. The suggestion/motivation would have been to implement the “adapting bitrate” to enable compatibility for EVS coverage with possible increase in delay and decrease in audio quality due to the need for transcoding between different formats (Ragot, [0116]). Including “EVS codec” of Ragot into the invention of Atarius was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Ragot.
Regarding Claim 5, Atarius does not expressly disclose the system as claimed in claim 4, wherein in response to the bit rate value of the received data packet mismatching with each of the predefined bit rate configurations, the one or more processors causes the communication server to perform at least one of :
reduce the maximum bit rate value to the predetermined value when a minimum bit rate value is less than the predetermined value;
replace the received bit rate value to the predetermined value when the minimum bit rate value is equal to the predetermined value; and
maintain the received bit rate value when the minimum bit rate value is higher than the predetermined value.
Ragot discloses reduce the maximum bit rate value to the predetermined value when a minimum bit rate value is less than the predetermined value (Ragot, [0053]: The bitrate estimate performed at the receiver is generally effective in reducing the encoding bitrate);
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate “adapting bitrate” of Ragot into the invention of Atarius. The suggestion/motivation would have been to implement the “adapting bitrate” to enable compatibility for EVS coverage with possible increase in delay and decrease in audio quality due to the need for transcoding between different formats (Ragot, [0116]). Including “EVS codec” of Ragot into the invention of Atarius was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Ragot.
Regarding Claim 6, Atarius-Ragot discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the communication server corresponds to a Converge Telephony Application Server (CTAS) (Atarius, FIG.12, SIP server, [0090]: SIP server within IMS is a CTAS to eliminate transcoding across all further calls).
Regarding Claim 7, Atarius-Ragot discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the communication server is configured to modify a bit rate parameter of the received data packet (Combined Atarius, FIG.12-Ragot, [0053] teaches the SIP server is configured to modify a bit on the receiver end).
Regarding Claim 8, Atarius discloses a method for restricting a bit rate for enhanced voice services (EVS), the method comprising:
receiving, by a communication server, a data packet from a user equipment (UE) associated with the communication server, wherein the data packet comprises a bit rate value of an EVS codec, and wherein the EVS codec enhances communication quality of voice services (Atarius, FIG.12, [0090]: various wireless communication networks may include EVS over 4G-LTE, 3G (WCDMA and cdma2000), WLAN (e.g., WiFi) and Broadband Fixed Network; [0077-78]: receive a packet which is a formatted group of bits which contains an encoded audio signal within the formatted group of bits. [0046-47], Table 2, [0065-66]: EVS encoder which encodes audio signal is an EVS packet which may be a formatted group of bits with an associated EVS bitrate per EVS standards);
comparing, by the communication server, the bit rate value of the received data packet to at least one of predefined bit rate configurations (Atarius, [0047], Table 2, [0081]: discards one or more pre-selected patterns from the packet to recover an encoded audio signal based on the data rate); and
when the bit rate value of the received data packet matches with the at least one of predefined bit rate configurations for enhancing the EVS (Atarius, FIG.3, [0048]: shows EVS at 13.2 kbps may have better music quality over AMR-WB at 23.85 bit rate).
Atarius does not expressly disclose
altering, by the communication server, the bit rate value of the received data packet.
Ragot discloses (Ragot, [0025]: the adaptation decision is made by the remote receiver. Combined Atarius, FIG.15, [0093-94]-Ragot, [0025] teaches the adaptation decision is made by the remote receiver (“server”)).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate “adapting bitrate” of Ragot into the invention of Atarius. The suggestion/motivation would have been to implement the “adapting bitrate” to enable compatibility for EVS coverage with possible increase in delay and decrease in audio quality due to the need for transcoding between different formats (Ragot, [0116]). Including “EVS codec” of Ragot into the invention of Atarius was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Ragot.
Regarding Claim 9, Atarius-Ragot discloses the method as claimed in claim 8, wherein the predefined bit rate configurations comprises multiple feasible variations for bit rate values of the EVS codec (Atarius, Table 1, [0045-46]: shows EVS bitrates and supported bandwidths. Each EVS bitrate in Table 1 is mapped to corresponding supported bandwidths).
Regarding Claim 10, Atarius does not expressly discloses the method as claimed in claim 8, further comprising:
reducing, by the communication server, a maximum bit rate of the EVS codec to a predetermined value when the bit rate value of the received data packet matches to at least one of the predefined bit rate configurations.
Ragot discloses (Ragot, [0053]: The bitrate estimate performed at the receiver is generally effective in reducing the encoding bitrate. The iSAC codec produces an average bitrate that is able to be adjusted relatively finely between a minimum bitrate and a maximum bitrate (for example 10 to 32 kbit/s or 10 to 56 kbit/s), whereas a multi-rate codec operating in accordance with a defined set of discrete bitrates, such as an AMR, AMR-WB or EVS codec).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate “adapting bitrate” of Ragot into the invention of Atarius. The suggestion/motivation would have been to implement the “adapting bitrate” to enable compatibility for EVS coverage with possible increase in delay and decrease in audio quality due to the need for transcoding between different formats (Ragot, [0116]). Including “EVS codec” of Ragot into the invention of Atarius was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Ragot.
Regarding Claim 11, Atarius does not expressly disclose the method as claimed in claim 10, further comprising:
upon the bit rate value of the received data packet mismatching to each of the predefined bit rate configurations, the method comprises at least one of :
reducing, at the communication server, the maximum bit rate value to the predetermined value when a minimum bit rate value is less than the predetermined value;
replacing, at the communication server, the received bit rate value to the predetermined value when the minimum bit rate value is equal to the predetermined value; and
maintaining, at the communication server, the received bit rate value when the minimum bit rate value is higher than the predetermined value.
Ragot discloses reducing, at the communication server, the maximum bit rate value to the predetermined value when a minimum bit rate value is less than the predetermined value (Ragot, [0053]: The bitrate estimate performed at the receiver is generally effective in reducing the encoding bitrate).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate “adapting bitrate” of Ragot into the invention of Atarius. The suggestion/motivation would have been to implement the “adapting bitrate” to enable compatibility for EVS coverage with possible increase in delay and decrease in audio quality due to the need for transcoding between different formats (Ragot, [0116]). Including “EVS codec” of Ragot into the invention of Atarius was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Ragot.
Regarding Claim 12, Atarius-Ragot discloses the method as claimed in claim 8, wherein the communication server corresponds to a Converge Telephony Application Server (CTAS) (Atarius, FIG.12, SIP server, [0090]: SIP server within IMS is a CTAS to eliminate transcoding across all further calls).
Regarding Claim 13, Atarius-Ragot discloses the method as claimed in claim 8, wherein the communication server is configured to modify a bit rate parameter of the received data packet (Combined Atarius, FIG.12-Ragot, [0053] teaches the SIP server is configured to modify a bit on the receiver end).
Regarding Claim 14, Atarius discloses a user equipment (UE) communicatively coupled to a communication server, the UE comprising:
one or more primary processors communicatively coupled to one or more processors of the communication server, the one or more primary processors coupled with a memory, wherein said memory stores instructions which when executed by the one or more primary processors causes the UE to (Atarius, FIG.12, [0090]: various wireless communication networks may include EVS over 4G-LTE, 3G (WCDMA and cdma2000), WLAN (e.g., WiFi) and Broadband Fixed Network;; FIG.20, apparatus 2000, processor 2004. memory 2006, processing circuit 2002, [0117-119]: apparatus 2000 (“UE”) employing a processing circuit 2002; includes the memory 2006 storing instructions, when executed by the processor 2004, causes the apparatus 2000 to perform the various functions):
transmit a data packet to the communication server via a communication network (Atarius, [0077-78]: receive a packet from an UE, which is a formatted group of bits which contains an encoded audio signal within the formatted group of bits), wherein the communication server is configured to:
receive the data packet from the UE, wherein the data packet comprises a bit rate value of an enhanced voice services (EVS) codec (Atarius, [0077-78]: receive a packet which is a formatted group of bits which contains an encoded audio signal within the formatted group of bits. [0046-47], Table 2, [0065-66]: EVS encoder which encodes audio signal is an EVS packet which may be a formatted group of bits with an associated EVS bitrate per EVS standards);
compare the bit rate value of the received data packet to at least one of predefined bit rate configurations (Atarius, [0047], Table 2, [0081]: discards one or more pre-selected patterns from the packet to recover an encoded audio signal based on the data rate); and
when the bit rate value of the received data packet matches with the at least one of predefined bit rate configurations for enhancing the EVS (Atarius, FIG.3, [0048]: shows EVS at 13.2 kbps may have better music quality over AMR-WB at 23.85 bit rate).
Atarius does not expressly disclose
alter the bit rate value of the received data packet.
Ragot discloses (Ragot, [0025]: the adaptation decision is made by the remote receiver. Combined Atarius, FIG.15, [0093-94]-Ragot, [0025] teaches the adaptation decision is made by the remote receiver (“server”)).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate “adapting bitrate” of Ragot into the invention of Atarius. The suggestion/motivation would have been to implement the “adapting bitrate” to enable compatibility for EVS coverage with possible increase in delay and decrease in audio quality due to the need for transcoding between different formats (Ragot, [0116]). Including “EVS codec” of Ragot into the invention of Atarius was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Ragot.
Regarding Claim 15, Atarius discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising processor-executable instructions that causes a processor to (Atarius, FIG.12, [0090]: various wireless communication networks may include EVS over 4G-LTE, 3G (WCDMA and cdma2000), WLAN (e.g., WiFi) and Broadband Fixed Network; FIG.20, apparatus 2000, processor 2004. memory 2006, processing circuit 2002, [0117, 121]: apparatus 2000 (“server”) employing a processing circuit 2002; includes the storage 2006 include a non-transitory computer-readable storage storing instructions, when executed by the processor 2004, causes the apparatus 2000 to perform the various functions):
receive a data packet from a user equipment (UE) in communication with a communication server, wherein the data packet comprises a bit rate value of an enhanced voice services (EVS) codec (Atarius, [0077-78]: receive a packet which is a formatted group of bits which contains an encoded audio signal within the formatted group of bits. [0046-47], Table 2, [0065-66]: EVS encoder which encodes audio signal is an EVS packet which may be a formatted group of bits with an associated EVS bitrate per EVS standards);
compare the bit rate value of the received data packet to at least one of predefined bit rate configurations (Atarius, [0047], Table 2, [0081]: discards one or more pre-selected patterns from the packet to recover an encoded audio signal based on the data rate); and
when the bit rate value of the received data packet matches with the at least one of predefined bit rate configurations for enhancing the EVS (Atarius, FIG.3, [0048]: shows EVS at 13.2 kbps may have better music quality over AMR-WB at 23.85 bit rate).
Atarius does not expressly disclose
alter the bit rate value of the received data packet.
Ragot discloses (Ragot, [0025]: the adaptation decision is made by the remote receiver. Combined Atarius, FIG.15, [0093-94]-Ragot, [0025] teaches the adaptation decision is made by the remote receiver (“server”)).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate “adapting bitrate” of Ragot into the invention of Atarius. The suggestion/motivation would have been to implement the “adapting bitrate” to enable compatibility for EVS coverage with possible increase in delay and decrease in audio quality due to the need for transcoding between different formats (Ragot, [0116]). Including “EVS codec” of Ragot into the invention of Atarius was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Ragot.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
ETSI TS 126 441 V16.0.0, (2020-08), Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS); LTE; Codec for Enhanced Voice Services (EVS); General overview (3GPP TS 26.441 version 16.0.0 Release 16).
Nokia, 3GPP Enhanced Voice Services (EVS) codec, Nokia White Paper, 2017.
3GPP, Enhanced Voice Services Codec for LTE, Nov 07, 2014.
6. 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 extension fee 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 CHHIAN (AMY) LING whose telephone number is (571)270-1074. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6 ET.
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, BRIAN J GILLIS can be reached on (571) 272-7952. 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.
/C.L/Examiner, Art Unit 2446
/BRIAN J. GILLIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446