DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application was filed on 23 August 2023 and is a 371 of PCT/US2022/018419 filed on 2 March 2022, which claims priority to US 63/157,928 filed on 8 March 2021.
Preliminary amendments to the claims were also filed on 23 August 2023. With these amendments:
claims 15 and 18 were amended; and
a cross-reference to related applications was added to the specification.
Preliminary amendments were filed on 17 October 2024 as well. With these amendments, claim 18 was further amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:402 and 404 (Figure 4).
The drawings are further objected to because the features and text of Figure 6 are illegible. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(p)(3), 1.84(k) and 1.84(l).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-8, 14-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing program instructions executable by one or more processors of an electronic device to perform operations comprising:
presenting a first set of views having a first set of options for using content in a three- dimensional (3D) environment, wherein the first set of views are provided from a first set of viewpoints;
determining to present a second set of options for using the content in the 3D environment based on user interaction data, wherein the second set of options comprises fewer options than the first set of options; and
in accordance with determining to present the second set of options, presenting a second set of views comprising the second set of options, wherein the second set of views are provided from a second set of viewpoints in the 3D environment.
Although a product is claimed (Step 1), under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification the above underlined elements recite a mental process because they describe steps that are performable by the human mind with aid of pen and paper. All of the steps are performable by the human mind with aid of pen and paper because the human mind with aid of pen and paper is capable of presenting options and views (e.g., on a piece of paper) “for” any number of reasons. The claim therefore recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A Prong 1).
None of the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (Step 2A Prong 2).
Reference to “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing program instructions executable by one or more processors of an electronic device” are mere instructions to apply the mental process because they only amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or generic computing components. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f).
Looking at the claim limitations as an ordered combination yields the same conclusion as that reached when looking at the elements individually. Their collective function is merely to implement the abstract idea using a generic computer.
The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for substantially the same reasons discussed above with respect to a practical application. (Step 2B).
As to claims 2-8 and 14-15, the features of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more at least because they only further describe the abstract idea itself.
As to claim 18, the claim recites the same abstract idea as claim 1 and does not include additional elements that integrate abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for substantially the same reasons. The addition of one or more processors coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium only amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or generic computing components. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f).
As to claim 19, the features of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more at least because they only further describe the abstract idea itself.
As to claim 20, the claim recites the same abstract idea as claim 1 and does not include additional elements that integrate abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for substantially the same reasons. The addition of an electronic device having a processor only amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or generic computing components. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f).
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 1-3, 10, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jia et al. (US 2020/0272303) (art made of record – hereinafter Jia).
As to claim 1, Jia discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing program instructions executable by one or more processors of an electronic device to perform operations (e.g., Jia, par. [0047]: one or more processors 510 may be configured to execute instructions for implementing the herein described technology. The instructions may be stored in memory 520) comprising:
presenting a first set of views having a first set of options for using content in a three- dimensional (3D) environment, wherein the first set of views are provided from a first set of viewpoints; (e.g., Jia, par. [0016]: a mixed reality view includes both a real-world environment and holographic aspects; par. [0051]: the holograms may include three-dimensional holograms; par. [0075]: as shown in FIG 6E, the hologram menu may be displayed; par. [0017]: each hologram menu may include a menu option for resizing the hologram; par. [0069]: the menu may rotate so that the menu is facing whatever direction the user is looking at)
determining to present a second set of options for using the content in the 3D environment based on user interaction data, wherein the second set of options comprises fewer options than the first set of options; (e.g., Jia, par. [0075]: as shown in FIG. 6D, if the hologram menu button is pressed, an abbreviated hologram menu is shown. As shown in FIG. 6E, the menu may be displayed rather than the abbreviated hologram menu [see figures, the menu in 6D has fewer options than the menu in 6E]) and
in accordance with determining to present the second set of options, presenting a second set of views comprising the second set of options, (see immediately above) wherein the second set of views are provided from a second set of viewpoints in the 3D environment (e.g., Jia, par. [0069]: the menu may rotate so that the menu is facing whatever direction the user is looking at [note that the abbreviated menu is still a menu]).
As to claim 2, Jia discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), Jia further discloses:
wherein the presenting of the second set of options occupies less space than the presenting of the first set of options (e.g., Jia, Figs 6D, 6E and associated text, [see figure the menu is 6D occupies less space than the one in 6E).
As to claim 3, Jia discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Jia further discloses:
wherein the first set of options are anchored to a particular location within the first set of views (e.g., Jia, par. [0067]: each hologram has a shape such as a cube. The hologram men is at the bottom of the cube. In other examples, the hologram menu is in another suitable location on the cube).
As to claim 10, Jia discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Jia further discloses:
wherein the first set of views and the second set of views change responsive to movement of a display or a system that the first set of views are presented thereon (e.g., Jia, par. [0017]: a head-mounted display provides the operator with a mixed-reality view; par. [0069]: par. [0069]: when the operator moves [i.e., the display moves, since it is head-mounted], the hologram menu may rotate [note that the abbreviated menu is still a menu]).
As to claim 16, Jia discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) Jia further discloses:
wherein presenting the views of the 3D environment comprises presenting video pass-through or see-through images of at least a portion of a physical environment, wherein a 3D reconstruction of at least the portion of the physical environment is dynamically generated (e.g., Jia, par. [0045]: display may display holograms superimposed on a physical environment. Display may be a display that is at least partially see-through and the hologram may appear at a desired depth and position within the user’s field of view).
As to claim 17, Jia discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Jia further discloses:
wherein the first and second sets of views are presented on a head-mounted device (HMD) (e.g., Jia, par. [0017]: a head-mounted display provides the operator with a mixed-reality view).
As to claim 18, it is a device claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Further limitations, disclosed by Jia, include:
one or more processors coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprises instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the device to perform operations (e.g., Jia, par. [0047]) comprising (see rejection of claim 1 above)
As to claim 20, it is a device claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Further limitations, disclosed by Jia, include:
performing the operations at an electronic device having a processor (see, e.g., Jia at par. [0047]).
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.
Claims 4-5, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia (US 2020/0272303) in further view of Zhou et al. (US 2019/0377464) (art made of record – hereinafter Zhou).
As to claim 4, Jia discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprise discontinuing presentation of the first set of options in accordance with determining to present the second set of options.
However, in an analogous art, Zhou discloses
wherein the operations further comprise discontinuing presentation of the first set of options in accordance with determining to present the second set of options (e.g., Zhou, Zhou, par. [0010]: the function menu being displayed on the first real object; par. [0075]: based on the first operation, the processor may control the image output unit 201 to output the image of a control menu to make the user perceive the control menu being displayed on the first real object. The control menu is different from the function menu. The control menu may include an operation control element of an application started by clicking on [user interaction data] an icon in the function menu [i.e., determining to display the control menu instead of the function menu]; par. [0074]: the processor determines not to display a portion of the content of the function menu; par. [0082]: the processor determines the user desires to conceal the image of the function menu or the image of the control menu and controls the image output unit 201 to terminate the outputting of the image of the function menu or the image of the control menu).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of a first and second set of options taught by Jia to include discontinuing presentation of the first set of options in accordance with determining to present the second set of options, as taught by Zhou, as Zhou would provide the advantage of a means for the user to selectively view only the second set of options as desired and reduce probability of a menu blocking the user’s observation. (See Zhou, pars. [0004], [0075], [0082]).
As to claim 5, Jia discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) but does not explicitly disclose wherein options included in the second set of options are based on a context of the first set of views.
However, in an analogous art, Zhou discloses:
wherein options included in the second set of options are based on a context of the first set of views (e.g., Zhouu, par. [0069]: controlling the image output unit 201 to not display apportion of the content of the function menu may refer to terminating outputting the content in function menu that is not related to a first interactive object or the application corresponding to the first interactive object; par. [0070]: the first interactive object on the function menu).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of a first and second set of options taught by Jia such that options included in the second set of options are based on a context of the first set of views, as taught by Zhou, as Zhou would provide the advantage of a means to reducing the probability of a user’s observation of an object (see Zhou, abstract) as well as a means of added efficiency, since only information related the user’s selection is displayed.
As to claim 9, Jia discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second set of options are displayed on a user's hand and determining to present a second set of options based on the user interaction data comprises detecting an interaction based on a user touching a corresponding portion of the user's hand.
However, in an analogous art, Zhou discloses:
wherein the second set of options are displayed on a user's hand and determining to present a second set of options based on the user interaction data comprises detecting an interaction based on a user touching a corresponding portion of the user's hand (e.g., Zhou, par. [0010: the function menu being displayed on the first real object; par. [0048]: the first real object may be a body part of the user such as a wrist, a palm [i.e., of a user’s hand], an arm, etc.; par. [0075]: based on the first operation, the processor may control the image output unit 201 to output the image of a control menu to make the user perceive the control menu being displayed on the first real object. The control menu may include an operation control element of an application started by clicking on [user interaction data] an icon in the function menu).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determining to display a second set of options taught by Jia such that the second set of options are displayed on a user's hand and determining to present a second set of options based on the user interaction data comprises detecting an interaction based on a user touching a corresponding portion of the user's hand, as taught by Zhou, as Zhou would provide the advantage of a means for the user to view the menu or avoid degradation of the user’s viewing experience as desired. (See Zhou, par. [0047, [0049]).
As to claim 15, Jia discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and further discloses the second set of options (see rejection of claim 1 above) but does not explicitly disclose wherein determining to present the second set of options is based on detecting that the user's hand is within a view from a viewpoint of the user.
However, in an analogous art, Zhou discloses:
wherein determining to present the set of options is based on detecting that the user's hand is within a view from a viewpoint of the user (e.g., Zhou, par. [0005]: determining that a first real object is within viewing range of the user; outputting an image of a functional menu to make the user perceive the functional menu being displayed on the first real object; par. [0048]: the first real object may be a body part of the user such as a wrist, a palm [i.e., of a user’s hand], an arm, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determining to display a second set of options taught by Jia such that determining to present the set of options is based on detecting that the user's hand is within a view from a viewpoint of the user, as taught by Zhou, as Zhou would provide the advantage of a means for the user to view the menu or avoid degradation of the user’s viewing experience as desired. (See Zhou, par. [0047, [0049]).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia (US 2020/0272303) in further view of Rice et al. (US 2005/0149877) (art made of record – hereinafter Rice).
As to claim 6, Jia discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Jia further discloses the second set of options (see rejection of claim 1 above) but does not explicitly disclose wherein options included in the second set of options comprises enabling a display of a bounding box corresponding to a detected object.
However, in an analogous art, Rice discloses:
wherein options included in the set of options comprises enabling a display of a bounding box corresponding to a detected object (e.g., Rice, par. [0118]: bounding box button 328 disposes a box around the topographic representation 115; par. [0107]: a topographic representation of the object [detected if it is used, displayed, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second set of options taught by Jia to include an option enabling a display of a bounding box corresponding to a detected object, as taught by Rice, as Rice would provide the advantage of a means for a user to display a bounding box around an object as the user desires. (See Rice, par. [0018]).
As to claim 7, Jia discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Jia further discloses the second set of options and the second set of views (see rejection of claim 1 above) but does not explicitly disclose wherein options included in the second set of options comprises enabling a display of a surface mesh corresponding to detected surfaces within the second set of views.
However, in an analogous art, Rice discloses:
wherein options included in the set of options comprises enabling a display of a surface mesh corresponding to detected surfaces within the set of views (e.g., Rice, par. [0118]: mesh toggle 312 permits a user to turn on and off the topographic representation; par. [0107]: a 3-D topographic representation “(a surface map)” of the object; par. [0048]: one or more objects 109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second set of options and second set of views taught by Jia such that options included in the set of options comprises enabling a display of a surface mesh corresponding to detected surfaces within the set of views, as taught by Rice, as Rice would provide the advantage of a means for a user to turn on and off surface representations of objects as desired. (See Rice, par. [0118]).
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia (US 2020/0272303) in further view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0335044) (art made of record – hereinafter Lee).
As to claim 8, Jia discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first set of options are anchored to a particular location and the second set of options include an option to reposition the anchored first set of options based on the user interaction data.
However, in an analogous art Lee discloses:
wherein the first set of options are anchored to a particular location and the second set of options include an option to reposition the anchored first set of options based on the user interaction data (e.g., Lee, Figs. 1A-1C and associated text, par. [0034]: a user may grab the menu icon [second set of options] and drag the icon to a different place in the screen to open it as a full menu [first set of options] 120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second set of options taught by Jia such that the first set of options are anchored to a particular location and the second set of options include an option to reposition the anchored first set of options based on the user interaction data, as taught by Lee, as Lee would provide the advantage of a means for the user to place the first set of options in a location that he or she desires. (See Lee, par. [0034]).
As to claim 19, it is a device claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 8. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia (US 2020/0272303) in further view of Claussen et al. (US 2019/0279424) (art made of record – hereinafter Claussen).
As to claim 11, Jia discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above) but does not explicitly disclose wherein determining to present the second set of options is based on determining, based on the movement of the display of the system that the first set of views are presented thereon, that the first set of options is not in view or that less than a percentage of the first set of options is in view.
However, in an analogous art, Claussen discloses:
wherein determining to present the second set of options is based on determining, based on the movement of the display of the system that the first set of views are presented thereon, that the first set of options is not in view or that less than a percentage of the first set of options is in view (e.g., Claussen, par. [0027]: one or more users wearing a head-mounted display; par. [0054]: the gaze cursor follows the direction of the user’s head; par. [0071]: embodiments may minimize the number of main menu items; par. [0080]: if the user moves the gaze cursor away from the menu/toolbox [first set of options], the menu may be minimized [second set of options]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first set of options, determining to display a second set of options and system display on which a first set of views are presented taught by Jia such that determining to present the second set of options is based on determining, based on the movement of the display of the system that the first set of views are presented thereon, that the first set of options is not in view or that less than a percentage of the first set of options is in view, as taught by Claussen, as Claussen would provide the advantage of a means of minimizing distraction and disruption to the user’s focus. (See Claussen, par. [0112]).
As to claim 14, Jia discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) but does not explicitly disclose wherein determining to present the second set of options is based on a relative position of the first set of options and the device.
However, in an analogous art, Claussen discloses:
wherein determining to present the second set of options is based on a relative position of the first set of options and the device (e.g., Claussen, par. [0027]: one or more users wearing a head-mounted display; par. [0054]: the gaze cursor follows the direction of the user’s head; par. [0071]: embodiments may minimize the number of main menu items; par. [0080]: if the user moves the gaze cursor away from the menu/toolbox [first set of options], the menu may be minimized [second set of options, so whether or not the second set is displayed depends on whether or not the gaze cursor is on the first set of options or not and the gaze is based on the position of the device because it follows the user’s head and the user is wearing a head mounted display]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first set of options, determining to display a second set of options and system display on which a first set of views are presented taught by Jia such that determining to present the second set of options is based on a relative position of the first set of options and the device, as taught by Claussen, as Claussen would provide the advantage of a means of minimizing distraction and disruption to the user’s focus. (See Claussen, par. [0112]).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia (US 2020/0272303) in further view of Basile (WO 2020/005898) (art made of record – hereinafter Basile).
As to claim 12, Jia discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and further discloses the first set of views (See rejection of claim 1 above) but Jia does not explicitly disclose wherein the first set of views comprises an integrated development environment (IDE) that includes programming code for an object.
However, in an analogous art, Basile discloses:
wherein the first set of views comprises an integrated development environment (IDE) that includes programming code for an object (e.g., Basile, par. [0019]: a simulated reality environment will trigger a breakpoint. This may be useful when developers encounter bugs within the simulated reality environment of a simulated reality application; par. [0040]: presenting a copy of the code “(e.g., a syntax color-coded copy of the code)”; par. [0039]: a line of code in a process associated with a virtual object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first set of views taught by Jia to include an integrated development environment (IDE) that includes programming code for an object, as taught by Basile, as Basile would provide the advantage of a means of removing errors from code and reducing development time for simulated reality applications. (See Basile, pars. [0018] and [0020]).
As to claim 13, Jia discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and further discloses the second set of views (see rejection of claim 1 above) but Jia does not explicitly disclose wherein the second set of views displays the object and introspection options associated with the object.
However, in an analogous art, Basile discloses:
wherein the set of views displays the object and introspection options associated with the object (e.g., Basile, par. [0024]: the system may display virtual objects; par. [0040]: the debug control interface may include icons that enable a user to issue a step-into command, a step-over command, a step-out command, a continue command, and/or a pause command to control execution of the process associated with the virtual object in the simulated reality environment. In some implementations the debug action includes presenting code of a process associated with a virtual object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second set of views taught by Jia such that the set of views displays the object and introspection options associated with the object, as taught by Basile, as Basile would provide the advantage of a means of debugging code associated with the object. (See Basile, par. [0040]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD AGUILERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11AM - 7:30PM 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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at (571)272-6799. 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.
/TODD AGUILERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights