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 .
Response to Amendment
Received 12/23/2025
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10, 16, and 19 has/have been amended.
The 35 USC § 112(b) rejection to claim(s) 3 have been withdrawn in view of the amendments received on 09/30/2025.
The 35 U.S.C § 103 rejection to claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-20 have been fully considered in view of the amendments received on 12/23/2025 and are fully addressed in the prior art rejection below.
Response to Arguments
Received 12/23/2025
Regarding independent claim(s) 1, 10, and 16:
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Page 9: ¶ 2 to Page 11: ¶ 1), filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Wherein, the amended subject matter narrowed the scope from the sampling being bounded by the general area of a pixel to being strictly within a pixel. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, necessitated by Applicant's amendments.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 Liu et al. (US PGPUB No. 20220114700 A1), in view of Munkberg et al. (US PGPUB No. 20200126191 A1), in view of Seiler (US Patent No. 11138747 B1), and further in view of Bastos et al. (US Patent No. 7050068 B1).
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Page 11: ¶ 4-5), filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10 and 16 under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive due claim 10's and claim 16's similarity to claim 1. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, necessitated by Applicant's amendments.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.
Regarding dependent claim(s) 2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-20:
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Page 11: ¶ 4 to Page 13: ¶ 2), filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive due the dependency upon claims 1, 10, and 16 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, necessitated by Applicant's amendments.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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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, 4-6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15-17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al., US PGPUB No. 20220114700 A1, hereinafter Liu, in view of Munkberg et al., US PGPUB No. 20200126191 A1, hereinafter Munkberg, in view of Seiler, US Patent No. 11138747 B1, hereinafter Seiler, and further in view of Bastos et al., US Patent No. 7050068 B1, hereinafter Bastos.
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
identifying a texture to be sampled corresponding to a pixel of an image to be rendered (Liu; identifying (via input) a texture/content to be sampled corresponding to a pixel of an image to be rendered/outputted [¶ 0045-0048], as illustrated within Fig. 1);
shifting one or more texture coordinates of the texture by a random amount selected to constrain the texture coordinate of a sample position to remain within bounds of the pixel (Liu; shifting one or more texture/content coordinates/pixels of the texture/content by an implicit random amount selected to constrain the texture/content coordinate/pixels of a sample position to remain within bounds/region of the pixel [¶ 0046-0047, ¶ 0049-0050, and ¶ 0052]);
sampling, using a shader, the texture at the sample position to determine a sample value for the pixel (Liu; sampling the texture/content at the sample position to determine a sample value for the pixel [¶ 0051-0053] using a shader [¶ 0045 and ¶ 0057]; moreover, sample point offset from a pixel center by a sub-pixel offset and pixel analysis region [¶ 0049-0050]; moreover, shader corresponding to GPU [¶ 0066-0067] further corresponding to a graphics processor configured to execute shader programs [¶ 0157-0159]; wherein, sample pixels can be determined using this sub-pixel offset data, where those sample pixels correspond to sample positions of this lower resolution rendered image [¶ 0055]); and
rendering the image using the sample value for the pixel of the image (Liu; rendering the image using the sample value for the pixel of the image [¶ 0048 and ¶ 0050]).
Liu fails to explicitly disclose sampling and rendering pipeline;
identifying a texture;
texture coordinate(s); and
a sample position to remain within a boundary of the pixel.
However, Munkberg teaches sampling and rendering pipeline (Munkberg; rendering involving adaptive sampling pipeline and sample map [¶ 0065-0066, ¶ 0069-0072, and ¶ 0075]; moreover, creating anti-aliased images [¶ 0062]).
Liu and Munkberg are considered to be analogous art because both pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with modifying 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 Liu, to incorporate sampling and rendering pipeline (as taught by Munkberg), in order to provide an improved visualization quality that removes artifacts from images (Munkberg; [¶ 0002-0005]).
Liu as modified by Munkberg fails to explicitly disclose identifying a texture;
texture coordinate(s); and
a sample position to remain within a boundary of the pixel.
However, Seiler teaches identifying a texture to be sampled corresponding to a pixel of an image to be rendered (Seiler; identifying a texture to be sampled corresponding to a pixel of an image to be rendered [Col. 7, line 19 to Col. 8, line 5]; wherein, rays are cast into a scene comprising one or more surfaces [Col. 42, line 55 to Col. 43, line 51] associated with texture [Col. 7, lines 19-45]);
one or more texture coordinates of the texture (Seiler; one or more texture coordinates of the texture [Col. 42, line 55 to Col. 43, line 49]; moreover, a sample stepper determine the (u, v) texture coordinates [Col. 23, lines 17-54]; additionally, coordinate conversion [Col. 21, lines 23-54]);
sampling the texture at the sample position to determine a sample value for the pixel (Seiler; sampling the texture at the sample position to determine a sample value for the pixel [Col. 15, lines 3-34 and Col. 22, line 64 to Col. 23, line 54]); and
rendering the image using the sample value for the pixel of the image (Seiler; rendering the image using the sample value for the pixel of the image [Col. 6, line 49 to Col. 7, line 3 and Col. 14, lines 44 to Col. 15, line 34]).
Liu in view of Munkberg and Seiler are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with modifying 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 Liu as modified by Munkberg, to incorporate identifying a texture to be sampled corresponding to a pixel of an image to be rendered; one or more texture coordinates of the texture; sampling the texture at the sample position to determine a sample value for the pixel; and rendering the image using the sample value for the pixel of the image (as taught by Seiler), in order to provide an improved immersive environment that reduces user discomfort and/or sickness related to movement(s) and latency (Seiler; [Col. 1, lines 19-40]).
Liu as modified by Munkberg and Seiler fails to explicitly disclose a sample position to remain within a boundary of the pixel.
However, Bastos teaches shifting one or more texture coordinates of the texture by an amount selected to constrain a sample position to remain within a boundary of the pixel (Bastos; shifting one or more texture coordinates of the texture by an amount selected to constrain a sample position to remain within a boundary of the pixel [Col. 7, line 44 to Col. 8, line 3], as illustrated within Figs. 4B-C; moreover, programmable sub-pixel offset values may be used to specify jittered sub-pixel sample position within the boundary of a pixel [Col. 9, line 64 to Col. 10, line 19], as illustrated within Fig. 7).
Liu in view of Munkberg and Seiler and Bastos are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with modifying 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 Liu as modified by Munkberg and Seiler, to incorporate shifting one or more texture coordinates of the texture by a random amount selected to constrain a sample position to remain within a boundary of the pixel (as taught by Bastos), in order to provide improved visual graphics by reducing aliasing associated with image rendering (Bastos; [Col. 1, lines 5-29]).
Regarding claim 4, Liu in view of Munkberg, Seiler, and Bastos further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, (Liu; the method [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] using one or more processors [¶ 0064-0066]; additionally, [¶ 0067]) further comprising:
determining an amount of global jitter applied for the image to be rendered (Liu; determining an amount of global jitter applied for the image to be rendered [¶ 0046-0047 and ¶ 0049-0051]); and
removing the amount of global jitter before shifting the one or more texture coordinates of the texture by the random amount (Liu; removing the amount of global jitter before shifting the one or more texture/content coordinates/pixels of the texture/content by the random amount [¶ 0049-0052 and ¶ 0054]; moreover, using jitter-aware upsampling [¶ 0046-0047 and ¶ 0055]).
Seiler further teaches one or more texture coordinates of the texture (Seiler; one or more texture coordinates of the texture [Col. 7, line 19 to Col. 8, line 5 and Col. 42, line 55 to Col. 43, line 51]; moreover, a sample stepper determines the (u, v) texture coordinates [Col. 23, lines 17-54]; additionally, coordinate conversion [Col. 21, lines 23-54]).
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 Liu as modified by Munkberg, Seiler, and Bastos, to incorporate one or more texture coordinates of the texture (as taught by Seiler), in order to provide an improved immersive environment that reduces user discomfort and/or sickness related to movement(s) and latency (Seiler; [Col. 1, lines 19-40]).
Regarding claim 5, Liu in view of Munkberg, Seiler, and Bastos further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
selecting the random amount for the shifting based at least in part on one or more texture coordinate derivatives (Liu; selecting the implicit random amount for the shifting based at least in part on one or more texture coordinate derivatives (i.e. content sub-pixels) [¶ 0049-0051 and ¶ 0055-0056]).
Seiler further teaches one or more texture coordinates derivatives (Seiler; one or more texture coordinates derivatives (i.e. surface sub-pixels) [Col. 7, line 19 to Col. 8, line 5, Col. 14, line 3 to Col. 15, line 34, and Col. 43, line 51 to Col. 44, line 11]; moreover, the raycaster may prepare ray bundles corresponding to one or more pixels of a tile or the four corners of a tile, or a single ray corresponding to the entire tile [Col. 42, line 55 to Col. 43, line 51]).
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 Liu as modified by Munkberg, Seiler, and Bastos, to incorporate one or more texture coordinates derivatives (as taught by Seiler), in order to provide an improved immersive environment that reduces user discomfort and/or sickness related to movement(s) and latency (Seiler; [Col. 1, lines 19-40]).
Regarding claim 6, Liu in view of Munkberg, Seiler, and Bastos further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the sampling is performed as part of a light transport simulation process or a rasterization process (Liu; the sampling is performed as part of a light transport simulation process or a rasterization process [¶ 0045 and ¶ 0049-0050]).
Regarding claim 8, Liu in view of Munkberg, Seiler, and Bastos further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein a weight is applied to one or more texture coordinates to determine the random amount for the shifting (Liu; a weight is applied to one or more texture/content coordinates/point to determine the implicit random amount for the shifting [¶ 0051-0053]).
Seiler further teaches one or more texture coordinates (Seiler; one or more texture coordinates [Col. 7, line 19 to Col. 8, line 5 and Col. 42, line 55 to Col. 43, line 51]; moreover, a sample stepper determines the (u, v) texture coordinates [Col. 23, lines 17-54]).
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 Liu as modified by Munkberg, Seiler, and Bastos, to incorporate one or more texture coordinates (as taught by Seiler), in order to provide an improved immersive environment that reduces user discomfort and/or sickness related to movement(s) and latency (Seiler; [Col. 1, lines 19-40]).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 10 is addressed within the rejection of claim 1, due to the similarities claim 10 and claim 1 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 1 regarding the rejection of claim 10; however, the subject matter/limitations not addressed by claim 1 is/are addressed below.
Liu discloses a processor (Liu; a processor [¶ 0081, ¶ 0083, ¶ 0093, and ¶ 0099]; wherein, parallel processing [¶ 0337]), comprising:
one or more processing units (Liu; the processor comprises one or more processing units [¶ 0292-0293]) to:
determine an amount of global jitter applied for an image to be rendered (Liu; determine an amount of global jitter applied for an image to be rendered [¶ 0047 and ¶ 0049-0051]);
shift one or more texture coordinates of a texture by a random amount that removes the global jitter and ensures a texture sample point for a pixel of the image remains within bounds of the pixel (Liu; shift one or more texture/content coordinates/points of a texture/content by an implicit random amount that removes the global jitter and ensures a texture/content sample point for a pixel of the image remains within bounds of the pixel [¶ 0046-0047, ¶ 0049-0050, and ¶ 0052]); and
perform sampling of the texture for the pixel at the texture sample point to determine a pixel value to use for the image to be rendered (Liu; perform sampling of the texture/content for the pixel at the texture/content sample point to determine a pixel value to use for the image to be rendered [¶ 0048 and ¶ 0050]).
(further refer to the rejection of claim 1)
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 11 is addressed within the rejection of claim 5, due to the similarities claim 11 and claim 5 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 5 regarding the rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 13 is addressed within the rejection of claim 4, due to the similarities claim 13 and claim 4 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 4 regarding the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, Liu in view of Munkberg, Seiler, and Bastos further discloses the processor of claim 10, wherein the processor is comprised in at least one of:
a system for performing simulation operations;
a system for performing simulation operations to test or validate autonomous machine applications;
a system for performing digital twin operations;
a system for performing light transport simulation;
a system for rendering graphical output (Liu; processor [as addressed within the parent claim] is comprised in (at least one of) a system for rendering graphical output [¶ 0045-0046 and ¶ 0057-0058]);
a system for performing deep learning operations;
a system implemented using an edge device;
a system for generating or presenting virtual reality (VR) content;
a system for generating or presenting augmented reality (AR) content;
a system for generating or presenting mixed reality (MR) content;
a system incorporating one or more Virtual Machines (VMs);
a system implemented at least partially in a data center;
a system for performing hardware testing using simulation;
a system for synthetic data generation;
a system for performing generative Al operations using a large language model (LLM);
a collaborative content creation platform for 3D assets; or
a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 16 is addressed within the rejection of claim 1, due to the similarities claim 16 and claim 1 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 1 regarding the rejection of claim 16; however, the subject matter/limitations not addressed by claim 1 is/are addressed below.
Liu discloses a system (Liu; a system [¶ 0081, ¶ 0083, ¶ 0092, and ¶ 0098-0099]), comprising:
one or more processors to render an image in part by shifting one or more texture coordinates, of a texture to be sampled for the image, by a random amount that accounts for global jitter and ensures a texture sample point for a pixel of the image remains within bounds of the pixel (Liu; one or more processors [¶ 0083, ¶ 0093, and ¶ 0099] to render an image in part by shifting one or more texture/content coordinates/points by an implicit random amount that accounts for global jitter and ensures a texture/content sample point for a pixel of the image remains within bounds of the pixel of a texture/content to be sampled for the image [¶ 0046-0047, ¶ 0049-0051, and ¶ 0052]).
(further refer to the rejection of claim 1)
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 17 is addressed within the rejection of claim 5, due to the similarities claim 17 and claim 5 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 5 regarding the rejection of claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 19 is addressed within the rejection of claim 4, due to the similarities claim 19 and claim 4 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 4 regarding the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 20 is addressed within the rejection of claim 15, due to the similarities claim 20 and claim 15 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 15 regarding the rejection of claim 20.
Claim(s) 2, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Munkberg, Seiler, and Bastos as applied to claim(s) 1, 10, and 16 above, and further in view of Lim et al., US PGPUB No. 20050019000 A1, hereinafter Lim.
Regarding claim 2, Liu in view of Munkberg, Seiler, and Bastos further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the random amount of the shifting (Liu; the random amount of the shifting [as addressed within the parent claim(s)]).
Liu as modified by Munkberg, Seiler, and Bastos fails to disclose wherein the random amount of the shifting is determined using a first order Taylor polynomial.
However, Lim teaches wherein the random amount of the shifting is determined using a first order Taylor polynomial (Lim; the random amount of the shifting [¶ 0041 and ¶ 0046-0047] is determined using a 1st order Taylor polynomial [¶ 0078-0080]).
Liu in view of Munkberg, Seiler, and Bastos and Lim are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with modifying 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 Liu as modified by Munkberg, Seiler, and Bastos, to incorporate wherein the random amount of the shifting is determined using a first order Taylor polynomial (as taught by Lim), in order to provide high resolution imaging with low resource intensive low-resolution imaging (Lim; [¶ 0003-0007 and ¶ 0013]).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 12 is addressed within the rejection of claim 2, due to the similarities claim 12 and claim 2 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 2 regarding the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 18 is addressed within the rejection of claim 2, due to the similarities claim 18 and claim 2 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 2 regarding the rejection of claim 18.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Munkberg, Seiler, and Bastos as applied to claim(s) 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Luebke et al., US PGPUB No. 20180096516 A1, hereinafter Luebke.
Regarding claim 7, Liu in view of Munkberg, Seiler, and Bastos further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein a hit point for the sampling is determined by tracing a ray for the pixel (Seiler; an implicit hit point for the sampling is determined by tracing a ray for the pixel [Col. 14, line 44 to Col. 15, line 34]), and wherein the shifting of the one or more texture coordinates occurs before determining the texture coordinate corresponding to the hit point to be used (Seiler; the shifting of the one or more texture coordinates occurs before determining the texture coordinate corresponding to the implicit hit point to be used [Col. 23, lines 35-54]).
Liu as modified by Munkberg, Seiler, and Bastos fails to explicitly discloses a hit point for the sampling.
However, Luebke teaches wherein a hit point for the sampling is determined by tracing a ray for the pixel (Luebke; a hit point for the sampling is determined by tracing a ray for the pixel [¶ 0019 and ¶ 0029-0030]).
Liu in view of Munkberg, Seiler, and Bastos and Luebke are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with modifying 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 Liu as modified by Munkberg, Seiler, and Bastos, to incorporate wherein a hit point for the sampling is determined by tracing a ray for the pixel (as taught by Luebke), in order to provide improved imaging that reduces aliasing (Luebke; [¶ 0003 and ¶ 0005]).
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 14 is addressed within the rejection of claim 7, due to the similarities claim 14 and claim 7 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 7 regarding the rejection of claim 14.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Munkberg, Seiler, and Bastos as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Skaljak, US PGPUB No. 20220028037 A1, hereinafter Skaljak.
Regarding claim 9, Liu in view of Munkberg, Seiler, and Bastos further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Liu as modified by Munkberg, Seiler, and Tovey fails to disclose using a clamped logarithmic function.
However, Skaljak teaches wherein the shifting is calculated using a clamped logarithmic function (Skaljak; the shifting [¶ 0050] is calculated using a clamped logarithmic function [¶ 0054 and ¶ 0058-0060]).
Liu in view of Munkberg, Seiler, and Bastos and Skaljak are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with modifying 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 Liu as modified by Munkberg, Seiler, and Bastos, to incorporate wherein the shifting is calculated using a clamped logarithmic function (as taught by Skaljak), in order to provide high resolution imaging with low resource intensive low-resolution imaging (Skaljak; [¶ 0003-0007 and ¶ 0013]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3 is/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. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of Reference Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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