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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 August 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Examiner acknowledges that Applicant requests to hold the filing of the terminal disclaimer in abeyance until such time as the claims are deemed otherwise allowable. However, the nonstatuatory double patenting will be maintained until such time that the terminal disclaimer is filed.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, and 13-15 are provisionally rejected on the grounds of nonstatuatory double patenting over claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 13-14, and 16 of copending U.S. Application No. 18,280,097 in view of Su (US 20220067093), and further in view of Danieau (EP 3495922).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Please see the comparison table below.
Claim
Current Application
18/282,381
Claim
Copending Application
18/280,097
1
A physical property map image generation apparatus comprising:
1
A map image generation apparatus comprising:
At least one memory that is configured to store instructions; and
At least one memory that is configured to store instructions; and
At least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to:
At least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to:
Acquire, for each of a plurality of patterns of a material that can be used in a target process, physical property information indicating a physical property quantity for each of a plurality of physical properties of a product that can be generated in the target process;
Acquire, for each of a plurality of
patterns of a material that can be
used in a target process, material
specification information
representing a material specification
of the material and physical property
information indicating a physical
property quantity for each of a
plurality of physical properties of a
product that can be generated in the
target process by using the material;
Generate, by using the physical property information, a self-organizing map on which each node is assigned a position in a map space and a physical property vector indicating a value related to a physical property quantity for each of a plurality of types of the physical properties of the product; and
Generate, by using the physical
property information, a self-
organizing map on which each node
is assigned a position in a map
space and a physical property
vector indicating a value related to a
physical property quantity for each
of a plurality of types of the physical
properties of the product; and
Generate a physical property map image that represents each of the nodes arranged in the map space by a color assigned to that node,
Generate a map image showing
each of the nodes arranged in the
map space, wherein the generation
of the map image includes:
For each of a plurality of pieces of the material specification information, determining a node assigned to a physical property vector that is most similar to a physical property vector obtained from the physical property information corresponding to the material specification information, and assigning the determined node a specification vector indicating values related to the material specification represented by the material specification
information; and
Wherein the generation of the physical property map image further determining, for each of two or three base colors, a base color component of a color to be assigned to each of the nodes based on a value that the physical property vector assigned to that node indicates for a physical property corresponding to that base color,
Performing clustering, coloring, or
both for each of the nodes in the
map image based on an assignment
of the specification vectors to the
nodes.
Wherein the physical properties corresponding to the respective two or three base colors are mutually different.
2
The physical property map image generation apparatus according to claim 1,
2
The map image generation
apparatus according to claim 1,
Wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions further to acquire identification information of the material corresponding to the physical property information, and
Wherein the generation of the physical property map image further includes:
Wherein the generation of the map
image includes:
Determine, the node to which the physical property vector that is most similar to the physical property vector obtained from the physical property information is assigned; and
[From claim 1] For each of a plurality of pieces of the material specification information, determining a node assigned to a physical property vector that is most similar to a physical property vector obtained from the physical property information corresponding to the material specification information, and assigning the determined node a specification vector indicating values related to the material specification represented by the material specification
information; and
Include, in the physical property map image an indication representing a relationship between the identification information corresponding to the physical property information and the determined node.
3
The physical property map image generation apparatus according to claim 1,
4
The map image generation
apparatus according to claim 1,
Wherein the generation of the physical property map image further includes set, for each of the nodes, a larger value to a magnitude of each base color component of the color assigned to that node as a value that the physical property vector assigned to that node indicates for that base color is more appropriate.
Wherein in the map image, a color of each of the nodes is determined
based on a magnitude of a
component of at least one base
color constituting the color, and wherein the generation of the map
image includes determining the
magnitude of the component of
each of the base colors of the color
assigned to the node by using a
value that the specification vector
assigned to the node indicates for a
parameter corresponding to the
base color.
Regarding current claim 1, claim 1 of the copending application teaches all of the limitations of current claim 1 except for the following, which are taught by Su and Danieau:
Wherein the generation of the physical property map image further determining, for each of two or three base colors, a base color component of a color to be assigned to each of the nodes based on a value that the physical property vector assigned to that node indicates for a physical property corresponding to that base color (Paragraph 142, A response signal is a measurable response of the sensing element or MOS pixel in a sensor, including changes in electrical properties… The highest values are depicted in red (or darker shades) and the lowest values in blue (lighter shades)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Su in the same art of visually mapping physical property data to assign two or three base colors to nodes based on physical property values. The motivation would have been to better visually depict the different values of physical properties in the map.
While Su fails to disclose the following, Danieau teaches:
Wherein the physical properties corresponding to the respective two or three base colors are mutually different (Page 5, Paragraph 5, only one map is associated with the image, the single map comprising for each pixel of the map a set of different values, each value being representative of a specific physical property. For example, a different value (of a specific physical property) may be associated with each channel of the map (for example 4 channels may be associated with each pixel, e.g. like for RGBα maps, RGB corresponding to the 3 color channels and α to the transparency information channel and being used to transport the values of the different physical properties).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Su and Danieau in the same art of visually mapping physical property data to use two or three base colors that are mutually different for mapping to different physical properties. The motivation would have been to effectively visualize the different physical properties displayed on the same map by creating contrast.
Current claims 7 and 13 are rejected for the same reasons as current claim 1, and correspond to copending claims 7 and 13.
Regarding current claim 2, as indicated in the above table, claims 1-2 of the copending application teaches the limitations of claim 2 of the current application except for the following which are taught by Su:
Include, in the physical property map image an indication representing a relationship between the identification information corresponding to the physical property information and the determined node (Paragraph 147, the closest identified smell to the new smell that user has provided. The identified smell information from the database is presented to the user).
Additionally, “Acquire, for each of a plurality of patterns of a material that can be used in a target process, material specification information representing a material specification of the material and physical property information” of copending claim 1 corresponds to “Wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions further to acquire identification information of the material corresponding to the physical property information” of copending claim 2.
Current claims 8 and 14 are rejected for the same reasons as current claim 2, corresponding to copending claims 7-8 and 13-14.
Regarding current claim 3, as indicated in the above table, claim 4 of the copending application encompasses the limitation of claim 3 of the current application.
Current claims 9 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons as current claim 3, and correspond to copending claims 10 and 16.
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 1-2, 6-8, 12-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagi (JP 2014026459) in view of Abuomar (Application of materials informatics to vapor-grown carbon nanofiber/vinyl ester nanocomposites through self -organizing maps and clustering techniques, 15 February 2019, Computational Materials Science, Volume 158, Pages 98-109), further in view of Su (US 20220067093), and further in view of Danieau (EP 3495922).
Regarding claim 1, Yagi teaches a physical property map image generation apparatus comprising:
At least one memory that is configured to store instructions (Page 2, paragraph 8, the CPU 211 that executes various programs and the program stored in the hard disk device 213 are read and executed by the CPU 211); and
At least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions (Page 2, paragraph 8, the CPU 211 that executes various programs and the program stored in the hard disk device 213 are read and executed by the CPU 211) to:
Generate, by using the physical property information, a self-organizing map on which each node is assigned a position in a map space and a physical property vector indicating a value related to a physical property quantity for each of a plurality of types of the physical properties of the product (Page 4, paragraph 8, the self-organizing map creation unit 22 described above creates a self-organizing map representing a similarity relationship by associating a plurality of types of physical property values with one node per substance among a plurality of nodes in the two-dimensional map);
While Yagi fails to disclose the following, Abuomar teaches:
Acquire, for each of a plurality of patterns of a material that can be used in a target process, physical property information indicating a physical property quantity for each of a plurality of physical properties of a product that can be generated in the target process (Page 99, column 2, paragraph 3, each data point corresponds to the combinations of eight input design factors and nine output responses, i.e. a total of 17 “dimensions” (the combination of both inputs and outputs of the developed model). These dimensions are curing environment, use of absence of dispersing agent, mixing method, VGCNF weight fraction, VGCNF type, high-shear mixing time, sonication time, temperature, true ultimate strength, true yield strength, engineering elastic modulus, engineering ultimate strength, flexural modulus, flexural strength, storage modulus, loss modulus, and tan delta (ratio of loss to storage modulus), where the last nine dimensions correspond to measured macroscale material responses);
Generate a physical property map image that represents each of the nodes arranged in the map space (Figures 3-16 and Page 108, column 1, paragraph 2, the SOM analysis allows a preliminary visual identification of the different existing groups).
Abuomar and Yagi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of visualizing properties with self -organizing maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yagi by using Abuomar and acquiring material and physical property information to generate a heatmap by assigning each node a specification vector and performing clustering based on the specification vectors to the nodes. Doing so would allow for more accurate detection of materials within images.
While the combination of Yagi and Abuomar fails to disclose the following, Su teaches:
Generate a physical property map image that represents each of the nodes arranged in the map space by a color assigned to that node (Paragraph 63, heatmap… depicting values for a main variable of interest across two axis variables as a grid of colored squares),
Wherein the generation of the physical property map image further determining, for each of two or three base colors, a base color component of a color to be assigned to each of the nodes based on a value that the physical property vector assigned to that node indicates for a physical property corresponding to that base color (Paragraph 142, A response signal is a measurable response of the sensing element or MOS pixel in a sensor, including changes in electrical properties… The highest values are depicted in red (or darker shades) and the lowest values in blue (lighter shades)).
Su and the combination of Yagi and Abuomar are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of visualizing properties with maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Yagi and Abuomar by using Su and assigning colors to nodes and using two or three base colors to assign to nodes based on physical property values. Doing so would give obvious visual cues about how the phenomenon is clustered or varies over space (Su, Paragraph 63) and is advantageous as standard tools are available to analyze the information provided in this particular heat map format (Su, Paragraph 142).
While the combination of Yagi, Abuomar, and Su fails to disclose the following, Danieau teaches:
Wherein the physical properties corresponding to the respective two or three base colors are mutually different (Page 5, Paragraph 5, only one map is associated with the image, the single map comprising for each pixel of the map a set of different values, each value being representative of a specific physical property. For example, a different value (of a specific physical property) may be associated with each channel of the map (for example 4 channels may be associated with each pixel, e.g. like for RGBα maps, RGB corresponding to the 3 color channels and α to the transparency information channel and being used to transport the values of the different physical properties).
Danieau and the combination of Yagi, Abuomar, and Su are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of visualizing properties with maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Yagi, Abuomar, and Su by using Danieau and use two or three base colors that are mutually different and correspond to physical properties. Doing so would allow effectively visualizing the different physical properties displayed on the same map.
Method claim 7 and CRM claim 13 correspond to apparatus claim 1. Therefore, claims 7 and 13 are rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yagi, Abuomar, Su, and Danieau teaches the physical property map image generation apparatus according to claim 1,
Wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions further to acquire identification information of the material corresponding to the physical property information (Abuomar, page 99, column 2, paragraph 3, These dimensions are curing environment, use of absence of dispersing agent, mixing method, VGCNF weight fraction, VGCNF type, high-shear mixing time, sonication time, temperature, true ultimate strength, true yield strength, engineering elastic modulus, engineering ultimate strength, flexural modulus, flexural strength, storage modulus, loss modulus, and tan delta (ratio of loss to storage modulus), where the last nine dimensions correspond to measured macroscale material responses)), and
Wherein the generation of the physical property map image further includes:
Determine, the node to which the physical property vector that is most similar to the physical property vector obtained from the physical property information is assigned (Abuomar, page 101, paragraph 2, The Euclidean distance is the typical measure by which an SOM determines the relative similarity or nearness of data vectors; Abuomar, page 101, paragraph 3, By using the concept of a spatial neighborhood (Nm), the similarity between the reference vector’s values, denoted by the weights vector between all neurons on the map and the input layer, and the input vector is measured.);
Abuomar and the combination of Yagi, Su, and Danieau are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of visualizing properties with self -organizing maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Yagi, Su, and Danieau by using Abuomar and identifying material corresponding to material property information and determine the most similar node to the physical property vector. Doing so would allow for more accurate detection of materials within images.
Include, in the physical property map image an indication representing a relationship between the identification information corresponding to the physical property information and the determined node (Su, Paragraph 147, the closest identified smell to the new smell that user has provided. The identified smell information from the database is presented to the user).
Su and the combination of Yagi, Abuoma, and Danieau are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of visualizing properties with maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Yagi, Abuomar, and Danieau by using Su and indicating a relationship between the identification information corresponding to the physical property information and the determined node. Doing so would give obvious visual cues about how the phenomenon is clustered or varies over space (Su, Paragraph 63) and is advantageous as standard tools are available to analyze the information provided in this particular heat map format (Su, Paragraph 142).
Method claim 8 and CRM claim 14 correspond to apparatus claim 2. Therefore, claims 8 and 14 are rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yagi, Abuomar, Su, and Danieau teach the physical property map image generation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the two or three base colors are primary colors different from each other (Su, Paragraph 142, The highest values are depicted in red (or darker shades) and the lowest values in blue (lighter shades)).
Su and the combination of Yagi, Abuomar, and Danieau are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of visualizing properties with maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Yagi, Abuomar, and Danieau by using Su and using two or three primary colors different from each other as base colors. Doing so would provide contrast between the base colors to effectively visualize the map image.
Method claim 12 and CRM claim 18 correspond to apparatus claim 6. Therefore, claims 12 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Claims 3, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yagi, Abuomar, Su, and Danieau as applied to claims 1-2, 6-8, 12-14 and 18 above, and further in view of Bhatia (US 20210026722).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yagi, Abuomar, Su, and Danieau teaches the physical property map image generation apparatus according to claim 1. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Bhatia teaches:
Wherein the generation of the physical property map image further includes set, for each of the nodes, a larger value to a magnitude of each base color component of the color assigned to that node as a value that the physical property vector assigned to that node indicates for that base color is more appropriate (Paragraph 68, With reference now to FIG. 5, a graph 501 generated using a self organizing maps (SOM) algorithm shows sets of log data… those that are colored darkest have an anomaly score of 0.0… as the potential for data in a set of log data being anomalous increases, the shading for sets of log data lightens, until a white shading indicates a high likelihood that the data in that set of log data is in fact anomalous).
Bhatia and the combination of Yagi, Abuomar, Su, and Danieau are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of visualizing with self -organizing maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Yagi, Abuomar, Su, and Danieau by using Bhatia and adjusting the magnitude (darkness/lightness) of the color of clustered nodes based on predetermined information. Doing so would allow for an easier to understand visualization of the values represented by the clustered nodes in the map image.
Method claim 9 and CRM claim 15 correspond to apparatus claim 3. Therefore, claims 9 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Claims 4, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yagi, Abuomar, Su, Danieau, and Bhatia as applied to claims 3, 9 and 15 above, and further in view of Kowatari (US 20170255721).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yagi, Abuomar, Su, Danieau, and Bhatia teaches the physical property map image generation apparatus according to claim 3. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Kowatari teaches:
Wherein the generation of the physical property map image further includes determine the node to which a color whose magnitudes of all the base color components (Su, Paragraph 142, The highest values are depicted in red (or darker shades) and the lowest values in blue (lighter shades)) are equal to or larger than respective thresholds is assigned, and highlights the determined node in the physical property map image (Paragraph 15, finding regions on the self-organizing map corresponding to the threshold value; and marking and displaying the regions on the self-organizing map corresponding to the threshold value).
Kowatari and the combination of Yagi, Abuomar, Su, Danieau, and Bhatia are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of visualizing information with self-organizing maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Yagi, Abuomar, Su, Danieau, and Bhatia by using Kowatari to highlight nodes in the map that have values greater than a determined threshold. Doing so would allow a user to easily determine which nodes meet the desired criteria.
Method claim 10 and CRM claim 16 correspond to apparatus claim 4. Therefore, claims 10 and 16 are rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Claims 5, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yagi, Abuomar, Su and Danieau as applied to claims 1-2, 6-8, 12-14, and 18 above, and further in view of Ampanavos (US 20220067461).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yagi, Abuomar, Su, and Danieau teaches the physical property map image generation apparatus according to claim 1. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Ampanavos teaches:
Wherein the generation of the self-organizing map generation further includes training the self-organizing map by using the physical property vector obtained from the physical property information as training data (Paragraph 41, the term “self-organizing map” refers to a type of artificial neural network that is trained… The font-map-creation system compares the weights of the nodes to input feature vectors for fonts to determine where the fonts (or their corresponding feature vectors) belong in the map (e.g., to determine which node is the best match)).
Ampanavos and the combination of Yagi, Abuomar, Su, and Danieau are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of visualizing with self-organizing maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Yagi, Abuomar, Su, and Danieau by using Ampanavos and training the self-organizing map by using physical property information. Doing so would have allowed the self-organizing map to help determine the best match for the physical property information for given inputs.
Method claim 11 and CRM claim 17 correspond to apparatus claim 5. Therefore, claims 11 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed for claim 2 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Abuomar teaches identifying association between a material and the physical properties along with determining the node to which the physical property vector is the most similar. Su teaches displaying the indication on the map.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SNIGDHA SINHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6618. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 12pm-8pm.
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, Jason Chan can be reached at 571-272-3022. 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.
/SNIGDHA SINHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2619
/JASON CHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2619