DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/31/2024 was considered by the examiner.
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: 10, 20, 30, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90. Further, the drawings do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 100, 110, 120, 130, 140, 150. It appears that Figures 1-3 use an entirely different numbering scheme than the specification. The examiner notes that paragraphs [0086] and [0102] recite “communication network 10”, however, Fig. 3 labels communication network as 70 which does not appear to be in the specification. Reference 10 does not appear to be a communication network. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the specification paragraph [4], “lap dip” should read “lab dip.”
In the specification paragraph [50], there appears to be a translation error. The paragraph reads “That is, in a state in which the fabric is not put into the fabric measuring apparatus 100, the color of the bottom surface of the fabric itself is measured.” However, the examiner believes it should read that the “color of the bottom surface of the fabric measuring apparatus itself is measured” based on the beginning of the paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1 and 2, the claims recite “based on color information of the bottom surface” which should read “based on the color information of the bottom surface”.
Further regarding claim 1, the claim recites “the apparatus comprising: an accommodation unit; a measurement unit; and a controller”. However, the claim recites that the controller is configured to perform the measurements, not the measurement unit. It would appear that the controller is controlling the measurement unit to measure data and the examiner suggests amending the claim to reflect that. Further, the claim recites “the fabric inserted into the accommodation unit” in line 5, but then recites “the fabric is inserted into the apparatus” in line 9. The examiner believes this line should also read “inserted into the accommodation unit”.
Regarding claim 4 and 5, the claims recite fourth and fifth color information, however, each claim only depends from claim 2. For example, claim 4 only recites first, second, and fourth color information, and skips third color information which was recited in claim 3. Similarly, claim 5 skips third and fourth color information. Since the claims do not depend from each other, the wording makes the claim appear incomplete since a number in the sequence is missing. It is recommended to either use “third color information” for each dependent claim, or rephase to avoid ambiguity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “wherein the measuring of the plurality of pieces of first color information includes measuring a plurality of pieces of first color information on an initial specific area of the fabric” in line 1. It is unclear if the “a plurality of pieces of first color information on an initial specific area of the fabric” is the same as “the plurality of pieces of first color information” or if they are different pieces of information. Is this replacing the step of “measuring a plurality of pieces of first color information on at least a partial area of the fabric inserted into the apparatus” recited in claim 2. Is this an additional step? Further, the claim recites “generating a correction value based on a plurality of pieces of fourth color information” in line 7. It is unclear if this correction value is the same as the correction value recited in claim 2 or if it is an additional correction value. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted to recite additional steps and values. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “wherein the measuring of the plurality of pieces of first color information includes measuring a plurality of pieces of first color information on an initial specific area of the fabric” in line 1. It is unclear if the “a plurality of pieces of first color information on an initial specific area of the fabric” is the same as “the plurality of pieces of first color information” or if they are different pieces of information. Is this replacing the step of “measuring a plurality of pieces of first color information on at least a partial area of the fabric inserted into the apparatus” recited in claim 2. Is this an additional step? Also, the recitation of “an initial specific area” and “a specific area” may create confusion as it could be unclear if they are the same. Further, the claim recites “generating a correction value based on a plurality of pieces of fifth color information” in line 7. It is unclear if this correction value is the same as the correction value recited in claim 2 or if it is an additional correction value. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted to recite additional steps and values. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a fabric measurement apparatus for determining color information of a fabric. The preamble does not actively add limitations to the claimed device or further modify the limitations recited in the body of the claim and thus does not limit the claimed process.
Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus and therefore falls within one of the statutory categories of invention: device.
Step 2A Prong One:
The limitation of “determine an average value of the plurality of pieces of first color information; and determine second color information of the fabric based on the average value, generate a correction value based on color information of the bottom surface, wherein the controller is further configured to determine the second color information of the fabric based on the average value and the correction value” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a mathematical concept. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitation of “the apparatus comprising: an accommodation unit; a measurement unit; and a controller; measure a plurality of pieces of first color information on at least a partial area of the fabric inserted into the accommodation unit… before the fabric is inserted into the apparatus, measure color information of a bottom surface of the fabric measuring apparatus” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, does nothing more than mere data gathering which is an extra solution activity or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to
integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “the apparatus comprising: an accommodation unit; a measurement unit; and a controller; measure a plurality of pieces of first color information on at least a partial area of the fabric inserted into the accommodation unit… before the fabric is inserted into the apparatus, measure color information of a bottom surface of the fabric measuring apparatus” amount to no more than mere data collection or using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Data collection cannot amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as it is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field and thus do not contain an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05 In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982). Further, the cited prior art KR 20070111670 A by Lee (at least Fig. 1 and 2) or CN 111886492 A by Zheng (Abstract) supports the conclusion that the combination of additional elements recited above are well-understood, routine, conventional activities as they teach an accommodation unit; a measurement unit; and a controller, and the steps of measuring color information of a fabric inserted into the device or measuring color information of a background or calibration surface. The conclusion is further supported but the lack of details about the accommodation unit and measurement unit in the applicant’s specification. MPEP 2106.05(d) I. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 ( Fed. Cir. 2016). This claim is not patent eligible.
Interpretation:
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites a method for determining color information of a fabric using a fabric measurement apparatus. The preamble does not actively add limitations to the claimed process or further modify the limitations recited in the body of the claim and thus does not limit the claimed process.
Step 1:
Claim 2 is directed to a method and therefore falls within one of the statutory categories of invention process.
Step 2A Prong One:
The limitation of “determining an average value of the plurality of pieces of first color information; and determining second color information of the fabric based on the average value.. generating a correction value based on color information of the bottom surface, wherein the determining of the second color information includes determining the second color information of the fabric based on the average value and the correction value” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a mathematical concept. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitation of “measuring a plurality of pieces of first color information on at least a partial area of the fabric inserted into the apparatus… before the fabric is inserted into the apparatus, measuring color information of a bottom surface of the fabric measuring apparatus” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, does nothing more than mere data gathering which is an extra solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to
integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “measuring a plurality of pieces of first color information on at least a partial area of the fabric inserted into the apparatus… before the fabric is inserted into the apparatus, measuring color information of a bottom surface of the fabric measuring apparatus” amount to no more than mere data collection. Data collection cannot amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as it is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field and thus do not contain an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05 In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982). Further, the cited prior art KR 20070111670 A Lee (at least Fig. 1 and 2) or CN 111886492 A Zheng (Abstract) supports the conclusion that the combination of additional elements recited above are well-understood, routine, conventional activities as they the steps of measuring color information of a fabric inserted into the device or measuring color information of a background or calibration surface. MPEP 2106.05(d) I Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). This claim is not patent eligible.
Discussion of dependent claims:
Dependent claims 3-5 include additional elements that generally describe the type/feature of data being provided in the recited method steps. Selecting a particular type of data to be manipulated is considered to be an insignificant extra solution activity as the additional limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. Therefore, the elements in claims 3-5 do not integrate the abstract ideas into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20070111670 A by Lee et al (hereinafter “Lee” cited in the IDS; translation provided) in view of CN 111886492 A Zheng et al. (hereinafter “Zheng”; translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a fabric measurement apparatus (at least Fig. 1 and 2) for determining color information of a fabric ([014]), the apparatus comprising: an accommodation unit (measuring space 11; [028]); a measurement unit (detector 30; [032]); and a controller (control circuit unit 40; [037]),
wherein the controller is configured to:
measure a plurality of pieces of first color information on at least a partial area of the fabric inserted into the accommodation unit ([0052] color of which is measured to produce the image data; an image contains a plurality of pieces of first color information).
Although Lee teaches measuring the color around the object to generate a correction value (interference factor) and determining second color information of the fabric based on the correction value ([058] interference factor subtracted from the numerical color data extracted by the target sensor 34 to obtain accurate color data), Lee does not explicitly teach to determine an average value of the plurality of pieces of first color information; determine second color information of the fabric based on the average value, wherein the controller is further configured to: before the fabric is inserted into the apparatus, measure color information of a bottom surface of the fabric measuring apparatus; and generate a correction value based on color information of the bottom surface, wherein the controller is further configured to determine the second color information of the fabric based on the average value and the correction value.
However, it would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine an average value of the plurality of pieces of first color information as this is a simple mathematical procedure to reduce the error of the calculation.
Further, Zheng does address the other limitations. Zheng and Lee are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of color inspection.
Zheng teaches wherein the controller is further configured to (processor module; [018]): before the object is inserted into the apparatus ([018]),
measure color information of a bottom surface of the measuring apparatus ([018] The background image of the environment); and
generate a correction value based on color information of the bottom surface ([018] use the background image to correct the item image through flat field correction ),
wherein the controller is further configured to determine the second color information of the object based on the object image and the correction value ([018] corrected image is the second color information).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to correct an image using information about the background. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Lee to include to determine second color information of the fabric based on the average value wherein the controller is further configured to: before the fabric is inserted into the apparatus, measure color information of a bottom surface of the fabric measuring apparatus; and generate a correction value based on color information of the bottom surface, wherein the controller is further configured to determine the second color information of the fabric based on the average value and the correction value as suggested by Zheng in order to improve measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches a method for determining color information of a fabric using a fabric measurement apparatus (at least Fig. 1 and 2; [014]), the method comprising:
measuring a plurality of pieces of first color information on at least a partial area of the fabric inserted into the apparatus ([0052] color of which is measured to produce the image data; an image contains a plurality of pieces of first color information).
Although Lee teaches measuring the color around the object to generate a correction value (interference factor) and determining second color information of the fabric based on the correction value ([058] interference factor subtracted from the numerical color data extracted by the target sensor 34 to obtain accurate color data), Lee does not explicitly teach determining an average value of the plurality of pieces of first color information; and determining second color information of the fabric based on the average value, wherein the method further comprises: before the fabric is inserted into the apparatus, measuring color information of a bottom surface of the fabric measuring apparatus; and generating a correction value based on color information of the bottom surface, wherein the determining of the second color information includes determining the second color information of the fabric based on the average value and the correction value.
However, it would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine an average value of the plurality of pieces of first color information as this is a simple mathematical procedure to reduce the error of the calculation.
Further, Zheng does address the other limitations. Zheng and Lee are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of color inspection.
Zheng teaches wherein the method further comprises:
before the object is inserted into the apparatus, measuring color information of a bottom surface of the measuring apparatus ([018] The background image of the environment); and
generating a correction value based on color information of the bottom surface ([018] use the background image to correct the item image through flat field correction ),
wherein the determining of the second color information includes determining the object image of the fabric based on the average value and the correction value ([018] corrected image is the second color information).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to correct an image using information about the background. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Lee to include determining second color information of the fabric based on the average value, wherein the method further comprises: before the fabric is inserted into the apparatus, measuring color information of a bottom surface of the fabric measuring apparatus; and generating a correction value based on color information of the bottom surface, wherein the determining of the second color information includes determining the second color information of the fabric based on the average value and the correction value as suggested by Zheng in order to improve measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 3, Lee modified by Zheng teach the method of claim 2, but Lee does not explicitly teach further comprising generating a first correction value based on third color information of a fabric sample having color information closest to the average value; generating a second correction value based on illuminance and light intensity of the fabric measurement apparatus; and generating a final correction value based on the first correction value and the second correction value, wherein the determining of the second color information of the fabric includes determining the second color information of the fabric based on the average value and the final correction value.
However, Lee teaches color temperature profile data table which includes various conditions for implementing color temperature and color temperature of lighting which includes the sum of hue and luminance ([045]) and color profile data table 52 which stores color profile data of various standards which contain information about fabric samples having color information closest to the measured value ([046]) and that the controller may extract a color configuration of R, G, and B from a color signal, and compare the result with a previously set color profile to control each configuration ([0022] and determine color data ([059]).
Thus it would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use previously stored data about color information closest to the average value and the lighting conditions, such as illuminance and intensity, to further make correct and determine the color of the fabric. Correcting or calibrating measurement data based on known parameters is a well-known process for reducing error. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Lee to include generating a first correction value based on third color information of a fabric sample having color information closest to the average value; generating a second correction value based on illuminance and light intensity of the fabric measurement apparatus; and generating a final correction value based on the first correction value and the second correction value, wherein the determining of the second color information of the fabric includes determining the second color information of the fabric based on the average value and the final correction value in order to further improve measurement accuracy.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zee in view of Zheng as applied to claim 2 above in further view of CN 112802418 A by Shi (translation provided).
Regarding claim 4, Lee modified by Zheng teach the method of claim 2, and Lee further teaches wherein the measuring of the plurality of pieces of first color information includes measuring a plurality of pieces of first color information on an initial specific area of the fabric (Fig. 2; [032]; measuring the object which may be fabric, thus it is measuring a specific area).
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises generating a correction value based on a plurality of pieces of fourth color information measured while sequentially increasing an area size of the initial specific area, wherein the determining of the second color information includes determining the second color information of the fabric based on the average value and the correction value.
However, Shi does address this limitation. Shi and Lee are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of color inspection.
Shi teaches measuring a plurality of pieces of first color information on an initial specific area of the object ([011] first specific area color value of the area, a central area close to the center),
wherein the method further comprises generating a correction value based on a plurality of pieces of fourth color information measured while sequentially increasing an area size of the initial specific area ([011] second specific area corresponding to the specific area of the display, full area color value of the entire display is sequentially bigger than the first area; [012] first difference between the color value of the first specific area and the color value of the second specific area can be obtained).
wherein the determining of the second color information includes determining the second color information of the object based on the measured value and the correction value ([072]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate a correction value based on a plurality of pieces of color information measured while sequentially increasing an area size and use that correction value on the average value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Lee to include wherein the measuring of the plurality of pieces of first color information includes measuring a plurality of pieces of first color information on an initial specific area of the fabric, wherein the method further comprises generating a correction value based on a plurality of pieces of fourth color information measured while sequentially increasing an area size of the initial specific area, wherein the determining of the second color information includes determining the second color information of the fabric based on the average value and the correction value as suggested by Shi in order to increase measurement accuracy by increasing the data sample size.
Regarding claim 5, Lee modified by Zheng teach the method of claim 2, and Lee further teaches wherein the measuring of the plurality of pieces of first color information includes measuring a plurality of pieces of first color information on an initial specific area of the fabric (Fig. 2; [032]; measuring the object which may be fabric, thus it is measuring a specific area).
Lee does not explicitly teach, wherein the method further comprises: measuring a plurality of pieces of fifth color information while changing a specific area according to a specific pattern; and generating a correction value based on the plurality of fifth color information, wherein the determining of the second color information includes determining the second color information of the fabric based on the average value and the correction value.
However, Shi does address this limitation. Shi and Lee are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of color inspection.
Shi teaches measuring a plurality of pieces of first color information on an initial specific area of the object ([011] first specific area color value of the area, a central area close to the center),
measuring a plurality of pieces of fifth color information while changing a specific area according to a specific pattern ([011] second specific area corresponding to the specific area of the display; the pattern is around the first area); and
generating a correction value based on the plurality of fifth color information ([012] first difference between the color value of the first specific area and the color value of the second specific area can be obtained),
wherein the determining of the second color information includes determining the second color information of the object based on the measured value and the correction value ([0072]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate a correction value based on a plurality of pieces of color information measured while changing a specific area according to a specific pattern and use that correction value on the average value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Lee to include wherein the measuring of the plurality of pieces of first color information includes measuring a plurality of pieces of first color information on an initial specific area of the fabric, wherein the method further comprises: measuring a plurality of pieces of fifth color information while changing a specific area according to a specific pattern; and generating a correction value based on the plurality of fifth color information, wherein the determining of the second color information includes determining the second color information of the fabric based on the average value and the correction value as suggested by Shi in order to increase measurement accuracy by increasing the data sample size.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 113008373 A by Shen teaches a method for measuring loose fiber color which uses calibration techniques.
US 20180136141 A1 by Deng teaches a method of testing the color quality of a colored gemstone which uses a standard lighting reference for calibration/correction.
US 20060109458 A1 by Watanabe teaches a standard plane sample which supplies an optical characteristic measuring device with reference data.
US 20180357793 A1 by Boes teaches a hyperspectral imaging spectrophotometer and system, with calibration, data collection, and image processing methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN E KIDWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/KAITLYN E KIDWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877