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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Received 04/23/2026
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, and 17-19 has/have been amended.
The 35 U.S.C § 103 rejection to claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, and 15-18 have been fully considered in view of the amendments received on 04/08/2026 and are fully addressed in the prior art rejection below.
Response to Arguments
Received 04/08/2026
Regarding independent claim(s) 1, 8, and 15:
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Page 9: ¶ 2 to Page 10: ¶ 1), filed 04/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, necessitated by Applicant's amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rodriguez et al. (US PGPUB No. 20210142058 A1), in view of Dorbie (US Patent No. 6369814 B1), and further in view of Ji et al. (US PGPUB No. 20230082349 A1).
Regarding dependent claim(s) 2-5, 9-12, and 16-18:
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Page 10: ¶ 2 to Page 11: ¶ 2), filed 04/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2-5, 9-12, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive due the dependency upon claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, necessitated by Applicant's amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the prior art as mentioned above.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 8 , 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez et al., US PGPUB No. 20210142058 A1, hereinafter Rodriguez, Dorbie, US Patent No. 6369814 B1, hereinafter Dorbie, and further in view of Ji et al., US PGPUB No. 20230082349 A1, hereinafter Ji.
Regarding claim 1, Rodriguez discloses an image processing server for transforming an image for projection onto a media plane of a venue (Rodriguez; an image processing server (i.e. central server and/or local/venue server) for transforming an image for projection onto a media plane of a venue [¶ 0016-0017 and ¶ 0063], as illustrated within Fig. 1; wherein, media plane(s) is/are a feature associated with the venue projection and are implicitly projected onto, given focal point(s) of the media planes (i.e. “… project content onto multiple focal points of the media planes”) [¶ 0067 and ¶ 0074]; additionally, media surfaces represent one or more surfaces that are provided with media content [¶ 0018] in relation with a venue [¶ 0019]), the image processing server comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions (Rodriguez; the image processing server [as addressed above] comprising a memory configured to store instructions [¶ 0110, ¶ 0114-0117], as illustrated within Fig. 16; moreover, CRM [¶ 0122]); and
a processor, configured to execute the instructions, the instructions, when executed by the processor (Rodriguez; the image processing server [as addressed above] comprising a processor (which is) configured to execute the instructions [¶ 0110-0111 and ¶ 0113] when executed by the processor [¶ 0122-0123], as illustrated within Fig. 16), configuring the processor to:
retrieve the image (Rodriguez; the processor [as addressed above] configured to: retrieve the image (i.e. media content) [¶ 0026-0027 and ¶ 0045-0046]; wherein, the media content is select (by a user) using the central server which relies on a processor to operate, thus the retrieval of media content using a processor is implicit [¶ 0078 and ¶ 0102-0105]; furthermore, media corresponding to images/video can be projected/transformed on media surfaces of a venue [¶ 0067 and ¶ 0077]; additionally, providing representative media content [¶ 0029]), project the media plane onto two-dimensional coordinates of an image space of the retrieved image to provide a plurality of two- dimensional points that are projected onto the retrieved image (Rodriguez; project the implicit media plane (the media plane as address above) onto 2D coordinates of an image space of the retrieved image (i.e. media content) to provide a plurality of 2D points (i.e. visual guidance) that are projected onto the retrieved image (i.e. media content) [¶ 0027 and ¶ 0029]; moreover, visual guidance present on content on a media surface [¶ 0054-0055]; still further, key features correlating to sample points [¶ 0030-0033] in relation with 2D or 3D coordinates [¶ 0036]; additionally, presenting sample points provided on media surfaces [¶ 0034-0035], as illustrated within Figs. 5A-B).
Rodriguez fails to disclose project three-dimensional coordinates of a plurality of pixels of the media plane onto two-dimensional coordinates of an image space of the image to provide a plurality of two-dimensional points that are projected onto the image, interpolate color information of the plurality of pixels of the media plane at the plurality of two-dimensional points based upon color information of a plurality of pixels of the image, and provide the color information of the plurality of pixels to the venue to project the image onto the media plane.
However, Dorbie teaches to:
project three-dimensional coordinates of a plurality of pixels of the media plane onto two-dimensional coordinates of an image space of the image to provide a plurality of two-dimensional points that are projected onto the image (Dorbie; project (i.e. back projection) 3D coordinates (of a display surface) of a plurality of pixels of the media plane (i.e. display plane) onto 2D coordinates of an image space (i.e. display plane) of the image (i.e. textured image) to provide a plurality of 2D points that are projected (i.e. back projected) onto the image (i.e. textured image) [Col. 7, lines 35-67], as illustrated within Figs. 2A and 2B; wherein, Fig. 2A illustrates, transformation stage 232 in relation with a back projection of dimensional points from a spherical dome surface onto a display plane; moreover, distortion corrections associated with non-linear display surface geometry and image mapping from texture coordinates [Col. 6, lines 36-55]; and moreover, a textured image [id.] further corresponds to a graphic image [Col. 6, lines 29-35 and Col. 6, line 56 to Col. 7, line 8]), interpolate color information of the plurality of pixels of the media plane at the plurality of two-dimensional points based upon color information of a plurality of pixels of the image (Dorbie; interpolate/transform implicit color information of the plurality of pixels (given texture of an image) of the media plane (i.e. display plane) at the plurality of 2D points based upon implicit color information of a plurality of pixels (given texture of an image) of the image (i.e. texture image) [Col. 7, lines 35-67]; wherein, the transformation of data further corresponds to a mapping and/or modification of data [id.]; moreover, using points of a display and texture coordinates to map images to a display plane [Col. 3, lines 29-38]), and provide the color information of the plurality of pixels to the venue to project the image onto the media plane (Dorbie; provide the implicit color information of the plurality of pixels (given texture of an image) to the implicit venue (given a spherical dome display) to project the image onto the media plane (i.e. display plane) [Col. 8, lines 1-35]).
Rodriguez and Dorbie are considered to be analogous art because both pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rodriguez, to incorporate to: project three-dimensional coordinates of a plurality of pixels of the media plane onto two-dimensional coordinates of an image space of the image to provide a plurality of two-dimensional points that are projected onto the image, interpolate color information of the plurality of pixels of the media plane at the plurality of two-dimensional points based upon color information of a plurality of pixels of the image, and provide the color information of the plurality of pixels to the venue to project the image onto the media plane (as taught by Dorbie), in order to provide improved distortion correction when rendering images induced by complex display systems (e.g. non-linear display surface geometry) (Dorbie; [Col. 1, line 28 to Col. 2, line 23 and Col. 2, line 55 to Col. 3, line 9]).
Rodriguez as modified by Dorbie fails to explicitly disclose color information; and by extension to: interpolate color information based upon color information of a plurality of pixels.
However, Ji teaches to: interpolate color information of the plurality of pixels of the media plane at the plurality of two-dimensional points based upon color information of a plurality of pixels of the image (ji; interpolating (i.e. blending) color information of the plurality of pixels of the media plane (i.e. image plane) at the plurality of 2D points based upon color information of a plurality of pixels of the image [¶ 0041], as illustrated within Fig. 5; wherein, a graphics pipeline computes the closest and farthest fragment in a volumetric model from a POV for each pixel [¶ 0045 and ¶ 0048] in relation with rendering colors for each pixel and blending the rendering color together for each pixel to create a volumetric visualization [¶ 0050 and ¶ 0053]; moreover, alpha blending in relation with surfaces [¶ 0028]; additionally, there can be multiple image planes [¶ 0043]), and provide the color information of the plurality of pixels to the surface to project the image onto the media plane (Ji; provide the color information of the plurality of pixels to the surface to project the image onto the media plane (i.e. image plane) [¶ 0041, ¶ 0045, and ¶ 0048]; additionally, the image is rendered based on an aggregate color of each section of the image plane [¶ 0032]).
Rodriguez in view of Dorbie and Ji are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rodriguez as modified by Dorbie, to incorporate to: interpolate color information of the plurality of pixels of the media plane at the plurality of two-dimensional points based upon color information of a plurality of pixels of the image, and provide the color information of the plurality of pixels to the surface to project the image onto the media plane (as taught by Ji), in order to provide an improved volumetric visualization for relatively complex models while creating visual clarity and interactivity (Ji; [¶ 0002-0005]).
Regarding claim 3, Rodriguez in view of Dorbie and Ji further discloses the image processing server of claim 1, wherein the color information of the plurality of pixels comprises luminance and chrominance components of YUV color model or red, green, and blue components of an RGB color model (Ji; the color information of the plurality of pixels comprises red, green, and blue components of an RGB color model [¶ 0037-0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rodriguez as modified by Dorbie and Ji, to incorporate the color information of the plurality of pixels comprises luminance and chrominance components of YUV color model or red, green, and blue components of an RGB color model (as taught by Ji), in order to provide an improved volumetric visualization for relatively complex models while creating visual clarity and interactivity (Ji; [¶ 0002-0005]).
Regarding claim 4, Rodriguez in view of Dorbie and Ji further discloses the image processing server of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, configures the processor to process the plurality of pixels of the retrieved image that are situated within a sample kernel space from among a plurality of sample kernel spaces of the retrieved image (Rodriguez; when executed by the processor the instructions configures the processor [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] to process/calculate the plurality of pixels of the retrieved image that are situated within a sample kernel space (corresponding to sample points of a POV) from among a plurality of sample kernel spaces (corresponding to another sample points of another POV) of the retrieved image [¶ 0029-0033]; moreover, presenting sample points provided on media surface [¶ 0034], as illustrated within Figs. 5A-B; and moreover, metrics from a POV are determined based on viewer location [¶ 0039-0041], as well as multiple POVs [¶ 0042]).
Dorbie further teaches a sample kernel space (Dorbie; a sample kernel space corresponding to an implicit region in relation with casted rays [Col. 7, lines 19-67], as illustrated by elements 224 and 232 within Fig. 2A as well as elements 232a and 232b within Fig. 2B; moreover, Fig. 2A illustrates, sampling corresponding to ray-casting 212-216 and points 226-230 within an implicit region; and moreover, Fig. 2B illustrates, sampling corresponding to rays and points within an implicit region).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rodriguez as modified by Dorbie and Ji, to incorporate a sample kernel space (as taught by Dorbie), in order to provide improved distortion correction when rendering images induced by complex display systems (e.g. non-linear display surface geometry) (Dorbie; [Col. 1, line 28 to Col. 2, line 23 and Col. 2, line 55 to Col. 3, line 9]).
Ji further teaches to interpolate color information of a pixel of the media plane from among the plurality of pixels of the media plane by weighting and accumulating the color information of the plurality of pixels of the image that are situated within a sample kernel space from among a plurality of sample kernel spaces of the image (Ji; to interpolate color information of a pixel of the media plane [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] from among the plurality of pixels of the media plane by weighting and accumulating the color information of the plurality of pixels of the image [¶ 0053-0054 and ¶ 0056-0057] that are situated within a sample kernel space (given a POV and spatial region) from among a plurality of sample kernel spaces (given POVs and surfaces (e.g. spatial regions) inside the volumetric model) of the image [¶ 0053 and ¶ 0072-0073]; wherein, the surfaces (and fragments) of volumetric model are associated with a POV [¶ 0037 and ¶ 0040]; in other words, a sample kernel space corresponds to a surface/region within the volume model in accordance with a POV and a plurality of sample kernel spaces corresponds to other surfaces/regions within the volume model in accordance with other POVs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rodriguez as modified by Dorbie and Ji, to incorporate to interpolate color information of a pixel of the media plane from among the plurality of pixels of the media plane by weighting and accumulating the color information of the plurality of pixels of the image that are situated within a sample kernel space from among a plurality of sample kernel spaces of the image (as taught by Ji), in order to provide an improved volumetric visualization for relatively complex models while creating visual clarity and interactivity (Ji; [¶ 0002-0005]).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 8 is addressed within the rejection of claim 1, due to the similarities claim 8 and claim 1 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 1 regarding the rejection of claim 8. Although, claim 8 and claim 1 may not be identical, it is reasonable to reject claim 8 based on the prior art teachings and rational within the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 10 is addressed within the rejection of claim 3, due to the similarities claim 10 and claim 3 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 3 regarding the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 11 is addressed within the rejection of claim 4, due to the similarities claim 11 and claim 4 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 4 regarding the rejection of claim 11.
Claim(s) 2, 9, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez in view of Dorbie and Ji as applied to claim(s) 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Skupin et al., US PGPUB No. 20190238609 A1, hereinafter Nelson.
Regarding claim 2, Rodriguez in view of Dorbie and Ji further discloses the image processing server of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further configures the processor to reconstruct the retrieved image from one or more digital image signals that are associated with the image (Rodriguez; the processor to process the retrieved image from one or more implicit digital image signals (given the communication between a server and venue) that are associated with the image [¶ 0014 and ¶ 0016-0017]).
Rodriguez in view of Dorbie and Ji fails to explicitly disclose one or more digital image signals that are associated with the image.
However, Skupin teaches the instructions, when executed by the processor, further configures the processor to reconstruct the retrieved image from one or more digital image signals that are associated with the image (Skupin; the instructions, when executed by the processor, further configures the processor [¶ 0135-0139] to reconstruct the retrieved image [¶ 0044-0046] from one or more digital image signals that are associated with the image [0013-0015]; moreover, streaming a video bitstream from a server [¶ 0016-0017]).
Rodriguez in view of Dorbie and Ji and Skupin are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rodriguez as modified by Dorbie and Ji, to incorporate the instructions, when executed by the processor, further configures the processor to reconstruct the retrieved image from one or more digital image signals that are associated with the image (as taught by Skupin), in order to provide an improved visible quality in relation with streaming of a spatial scene (Skupin; [¶ 0003 and ¶ 0007-0009]).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 9 is addressed within the rejection of claim 2, due to the similarities claim 9 and claim 2 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 2 regarding the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 15 is addressed within the rejection of claims 1 & 2, due to the similarities claim 15 and claims 1 & 2 share, therefore refer to the rejections of claims 1 & 2 regarding the rejection of claim 15. Although, claim 15 and claims 1 & 2 may not be identical, it is reasonable to reject claim 15 based on the prior art teachings and rational within the rejections of claims 1 & 2. However, the subject matter/limitations not addressed by claims 1 & 2 is/are addressed below.
Skupin teaches an image recording system configured to store one or more digital image that are associated with the image (Skupin; an image recording system (i.e. database) [¶ 0042] configured to store one or more digital image that are associated with the image [¶ 0045-0047]; wherein, image data is retrievable [¶ 0043-0044]).
Rodriguez in view of Dorbie and Ji and Skupin are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rodriguez as modified by Dorbie and Ji, to incorporate an image recording system configured to store one or more digital image that are associated with the image (as taught by Skupin), in order to provide an improved visible quality in relation with streaming of a spatial scene (Skupin; [¶ 0003 and ¶ 0007-0009]).
(further refer to the rejection of claims 1 and 2)
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 16 is addressed within the rejection of claim 3, due to the similarities claim 16 and claim 3 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 3 regarding the rejection of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 17 is addressed within the rejection of claim 4, due to the similarities claim 17 and claim 4 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 4 regarding the rejection of claim 17. However, the subject matter/limitations not addressed by claim 4 is/are addressed below.
Skupin teaches the reconstructed image (Skupin; the reconstructed image [¶ 0044-0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rodriguez as modified by Dorbie, Ji, and Skupin, to incorporate the reconstructed image (as taught by Skupin), in order to provide an improved visible quality in relation with streaming of a spatial scene (Skupin; [¶ 0003 and ¶ 0007-0009]).
(further refer to the rejection of claim 4)
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez in view of Dorbie and Ji as applied to claim(s) 4 and 11 above, and further in view of Nelson et al., US PGPUB No. 20020000988, hereinafter Nelson.
Regarding claim 5, Rodriguez in view of Dorbie and Ji further discloses the image processing server of claim 4, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, configures the processor to process the plurality of pixels of the retrieved image that are situated within the sample kernel space in accordance with a surface (Rodriguez; when executed by the processor the instructions configures the processor [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] to process the plurality of pixels of the retrieved image that are situated within the sample kernel space (corresponding to sample points of a POV) in accordance media surface [¶ 0029-0033]; moreover, presenting sample points provided on media surface [¶ 0034], as illustrated within Figs. 5A-B; and moreover, sampling in relation with POV [¶ 0040-0041]).
Ji further teaches to weight the color information of the plurality of pixels of the image that are situated within the sample kernel space in accordance with a function (Ji; to weight the color information of the plurality of pixels of the image that are situated within the sample kernel space in accordance with a function (i.e. Beer-Lambert absorption law) [¶ 0055-0057]; moreover, an accumulation weight is a parameter determined by a location within a model [¶ 0053-0054]).
Rodriguez as modified by Dorbie and Ji fails to disclose a probability density function.
Nelson further teaches to weigh the color information of the plurality of pixels of the image that are situated within the sample kernel space in accordance with a probability density function (Nelson; to weigh/calculate the color information of the plurality of pixels of the image that are situated within the sample kernel space [¶ 0094-0097] in accordance with a probability density function (corresponding to super-sampling) [¶ 0122-0126]; moreover, sample density within a region [¶ 0124-0126], as illustrated within Fig. 5A-B).
Rodriguez in view of Dorbie and Ji and Nelson are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rodriguez as modified by Dorbie and Ji, to incorporate to weigh the color information of the plurality of pixels of the image that are situated within the sample kernel space in accordance with a probability density function (as taught by Nelson), in order to provide an improved image processing without the need for higher resource complexity (Nelson; [¶ 0005-0010 and ¶ 0016]; moreover, improved realism, reducing artifacts, and efficient rendering [¶ 0011-0014 and ¶ 0017]).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 12 is addressed within the rejection of claim 5, due to the similarities claim 12 and claim 5 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 5 regarding the rejection of claim 12.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez in view of Dorbie, Ji, and Skupin as applied to claim(s) 17 above, and further in view of Nelson.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 18 is addressed within the rejection of claim 5, due to the similarities claim 18 and claim 5 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 5 regarding the rejection of claim 18. However, the subject matter/limitations not addressed by claim 5 is/are addressed below.
Skupin teaches the reconstructed image (Skupin; the reconstructed image [¶ 0044-0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rodriguez as modified by Dorbie, Ji, and Skupin, to incorporate the reconstructed image (as taught by Skupin), in order to provide an improved visible quality in relation with streaming of a spatial scene (Skupin; [¶ 0003 and ¶ 0007-0009]).
(further refer to the rejection of claim 5)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Shumizu (US Patent No. 5920320);
Gallagher (US Patent No. 6778699 B1);
Ayala (US PGPUB No. 20090219381 A1);
Van der Auwera et al. (US Patent No. 10699389 B2);
Ernst et al. (US Patent No. 10089796 B1);
Yan et al. (US Patent No. 11361495 B1); and
He et al. (US Patent No. 11677802 B2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charles Lloyd Beard whose telephone number is (571)272-5735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 5: 00 PM, alternate Fridays 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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571) 272-7773. 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.
CHARLES LLOYD. BEARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2611
/CHARLES L BEARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights