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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 30 March 2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/536,634 (the instant application), filed on 12 December 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12 December 2023, 5 February 2024, and 24 October 2024 were received and the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: "A Device and Method for Detecting Performing a Task Based on Image Data and for Interpolating a Task During an Undetected Period".
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: a controller configured to detect the task and compensate the detection in claim 1.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
This limitation is understood as a computer implemented means-plus-function limitation. MPEP 2181.II.B states "For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)." Therefore, this limitation is being interpreted as the computer structure as well as the algorithm to transform that computer from a general purpose computer to a specific purpose computer.
The limitation is interpreted as follows:
Structure: a processor which accesses instructions from a memory to perform the task, see [0018].
Algorithm: detect the task using task detection model; determine if a target task is detected; if yes, determine whether the detected task is a placing task; if the task is not placing then record the time at which the target task is detected based on the current detection result; record the current detection result; if the target task is not detected then record the current detection result; if the current process is a placing process then interpolate the period to the previous task with the target task, record the time at which the target task is detected, and record the current detection result. See Fig. 6 and [0057]-[0067].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taminato (JP 2021082137 A) in view of Sorakado (JP 2019193019 A) in further view of Ron et al. (US 11620822 B1; hereafter, Ron).
Regarding claim 1, limitations of claim 1 are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Content that is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) will be represented by italic text.
Taminato discloses:
An image analysis device comprising: an input interface configured to acquire image data (pg. 6 para. 6, the estimation unit receives and analyzes image data, therefore it may be understood as an input interface) indicating an image of an operator performing task (pg. 6 para. 6, the image data is "of the work along the time axis of the object (worker)" which is understood as an operator performing a task);
and a controller configured to detect the task performed by the operator sequentially, based on the image data (pg. 6 para. 6, "The estimation unit 105 estimates the work label of the work", assigning a "work label" is understood as detecting the type of work is in the image, i.e. "to detect the task performed by the operator"), to generate task detection information indicating a detection result of the task (pg. 6 para. 6, "and outputs the estimation result 106." pg. 7 para. 2, the estimation result is used to determine and action detection which is understood as information indicating a detection result of the task), wherein the task includes a plurality of processes performed by the operator (pg. 3 para. 6, associated with Fig. 2 detected work is detected as a "work order" comprised of individual "works". For example, the top of pg. 5 shows different orders of works completed in five different work orders. Therefore, a work order is understood as a task and is comprised of a plurality of works understood as processes), and the controller is configured to compensate the task detection information by interpolating a detection result of the task (pg. 9 para. 2 "the dynamically added context information 21 is applied to the action detection unit 107 of the action recognition system 1, and when the detection result obtained thereby is more plausible than the first detection result, the second detection result 22 Is output." This is understood as replacing, i.e. compensating, a detection result with a more plausible detection. This is understood as an interpolation as it may fill the space between processes as shown in Fig. 9 and pg. 9 para. 3, the 3-0-3 correction fills the gap of the not detected first work 3) within an undetected period (pg. 8 para. 4, "the abnormality detection unit 201 determines the occurrence of omission of work. When the abnormality detection unit 201 determines from the first detection result that the work in the process has not been detected, it determines that a work omission has occurred", detecting an omission is understood as an undetected period because a work was missed, i.e. undetected),
the undetected period being a period in which the task is not detected (pg. 8 para. 4, "the abnormality detection unit 201 determines the occurrence of omission of work. When the abnormality detection unit 201 determines from the first detection result that the work in the process has not been detected, it determines that a work omission has occurred", detecting an omission is understood as an undetected period because a work was missed, i.e. undetected),
Structure: a processor which accesses instructions from a memory to perform the task, see [0018]. (pg. 3 para. 4, a processor executes a method stored on a memory)
Algorithm: detect the task using task detection model (pg. 6 para. 6, "The estimation unit 105 estimates the work label of the work", assigning a "work label" is understood as detecting the type of work is in the image, i.e. "to detect the task performed by the operator");
then interpolate the period to the previous task with the target task (pg. 9 para. 2 "the dynamically added context information 21 is applied to the action detection unit 107 of the action recognition system 1, and when the detection result obtained thereby is more plausible than the first detection result, the second detection result 22 Is output." This is understood as replacing, i.e. compensating, a detection result with a more plausible detection. This is understood as an interpolation as it may fill the space between processes as shown in Fig. 9 and pg. 9 para. 3, the 3-0-3 correction fills the gap of the not detected first work 3),
Taminato does not disclose expressly interpolating in accordance with one or both of a pre process and a post process, the pre process being a task before the undetected period, and the post process being a task after the undetected period.
Sorakado discloses:
in accordance with one or both of a pre process and a post process of the undetected period (pg. 22 para. last, a work section is corrected only if the first and last motion recognition sections can be trusted which is understood as in accordance with one or both of a pre process and a post process),
the pre process being a process of the task detected previously to the undetected period (pg. 21 para. 4, the first operation is described as an "end" operation which is understood as a beginning end. Therefore, it is a pre process), and the post process being a process of the task detected subsequently to the undetected period (pg. 21 para. 4, the last operation is described as an "end" operation which is understood as the completion end. Therefore, it is a post process).
Taminato and Sorakado are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of detecting the performance of work in an industrial setting (Taminato pg. 2 para. 1; Sorakado pg. 2 para. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the dependence on pre and post processes of Sorakado with the invention of Taminato.
The motivation for doing so would have been "the work section is corrected according to the recognition result of the operation constituting the work, so that the accuracy of the work section is improved. In addition, when the reliability of the first and last motion recognition in the motion recognition section is low, by not correcting the work section, it is possible to prevent the accuracy of the work section from being deteriorated by the correction." (Sorakado, pg. 23 para. last).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sorakado with Taminato.
Taminato in view of Sorakado does not disclose expressly to determine if a target task is detected, detect if the task is a placing task, record the current detection result, and if the task is a placing task then interpolate the period to the previous task.
Ron discloses:
determine if a target task is detected (col. 20 line 49-52, an activity, i.e. a task, is detected);
if yes, determine whether the detected task is a placing task (col. 20 line 63-66, objects in image are identified which is part of detecting a placing action);
if the task is not a placing process then record the time at which the target task is detected based on the current detection result (col. 20 line 57-62, " For example, if a user places their hand in the cart, without an item, the activity-detection component 406 may detect this activity and notify the event-determination component 412, while the item-identification component 410 would not identify an item (given that there is no item in the image data in this example)." Therefore, a task which is not a placing task is detected. Col. 18 line 19-21, "For example, after a predefined amount of time without the generated image data representing any activity," therefore, it is understood that when an activity is detected the time associated with the activity is tracked. It is understood that detecting an activity includes recording the time that the activity was detected);
record the current detection result (col. 25 line 47-50, images are stored in a memory based on item recognition. Therefore, it is understood that images associated with an activity, such as item placing, are stored which may be the current detection result);
if the target task is not detected then record the current detection result (col. 18 line 19-23, "For example, after a predefined amount of time without the generated image data representing any activity, such as a user reaching into the basket, an activity-detection component of the cart may determine that activity has ceased." In this time period, a task is not detected. Col 18 line 23-24, "This determination may result in an event-determination", when no activity is detected it is an event determination which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be recorded as the current event);
if the current process is a placing process (col. 9 line 17-19, "For example, upon a user placing an item into or removing an item from the cart, the cart may generate image data, identify the item, " Therefore, the action may be a placing action) perform interpolation (taught by Taminato above)
record the time at which the target task is detected (col. 26 line 15-18, "the item-localization component 408 stores each frame in association with a timestamp representing the time at which the respective frame was generated, analyzed, processed," the time of each frame, therefore also the detect event, are recorded), and record the current detection result (col. 25 line 47-50, images are stored in a memory based on item recognition. Therefore, it is understood that images associated with an activity, such as item placing, are stored which may be the current detection result).
Ron is combinable with Taminato in view of Sorakado because it is from the related field of endeavor of identifying objects and object related events associated with a user or operator (Ron, col. 3 line 17-23).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the placing action and detection of Ron with the invention of Taminato in view of Sorakado.
The motivation for doing so would have been "In this way, the cart may identify and track items that are retrieved from different locations within the facility" (Ron, col. 12 line 24-26).
Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Ron with Taminato in view of Sorakado to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Taminato in view of Sorakado in further view of Ron discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Taminato discloses:
The image analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of processes include a first process starting the task, a second process continuing the task, and a third process ending the task (pg. 5 shows a series of works such as {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7}. Work 1 may be understood as a first process starting a task, works 2, 3, 4, 5, and/or 6 may be understood as a second process continuing the task, and work 7 may be understood as a process ending the task),
Taminato does not disclose expressly that the controller interpolates in at least one of a case that the post process of the undetected period is the second process or in a case that the post process of the undetected period is the third process.
Sorakado discloses:
the controller interpolates the detection result of the task within the undetected period, at least one of: in a case where the post process of the undetected period is the second process or in a case where the post process of the undetected period is the third process (pg. 21 para. last though pg. 22 para. 1, "when it can be determined that only the beginning is reliable, only the start side of the selected work section is corrected, and the end side is not corrected." Therefore, correction takes place after the first process, i.e. the beginning, but before the third process, i.e. the end. Therefore, the correction must be the second process. A region for correction is understood as an undetected period).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the interpolation in the case the post process being the third process of Sorakado with the invention of Taminato.
The motivation for doing so would have been "the work section is corrected according to the recognition result of the operation constituting the work, so that the accuracy of the work section is improved" (Sorakado, pg. 23 para. last).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sorakado with the invention of Taminato to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Taminato in view of Sorakado in further view of Ron discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Taminato further discloses:
The image analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to identify a performed process based on the image data (pg. 6 para. 6, a process, i.e. a work, is detected from image data), and to compensate the task detection information based on a result of identifying the performed process (pg. 9 para. 2 "the dynamically added context information 21 is applied to the action detection unit 107 of the action recognition system 1, and when the detection result obtained thereby is more plausible than the first detection result, the second detection result 22 Is output." Therefore, the compensation or correction is based on detecting a more plausible result which is understood as based on a result of identifying the performed process), the performed process being performed by the operator when the task is detected (pg. 6 para. 6, the image data is "of the work along the time axis of the object (worker)" which is understood as an operator performing a task).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taminato (JP 2021082137 A) in view of Sorakado (JP 2019193019 A) in further view of Ron et al. (US 11620822 B1; hereafter, Ron) and Issing et al. (US 20140083058 A1; hereafter, Issing).
Regarding claim 4, Taminato in view of Sorakado in further view of Ron discloses the subject matter of claim 2.
Taminato in view of Sorakado in further view of Ron does not disclose expressly that the task is a carrying task comprised of a pick up, a moving, and an ending of carrying.
Issing discloses:
The image analysis device according to claim 2, wherein the task is a carrying task to move an object, and the carrying task includes a process starting moving the object as the first process, a process continuing moving the object as the second process, and a process ending moving the object as the third process ([0104] "The operator 34 moves (manipulates) piece goods 40 at the packing station 20 from the trays 38 to, for example, an order pallet 48 or another target (container, card, tray, etc.)", this is understood as picking up the goods from the packing station, moving the goods, and ending the moving at the order pallet).
Issing is combinable with Taminato in view of Sorakado in further view of Ron because it is from the same field of endeavor of tracking the motions of an operator (Issing, [0002]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the carrying process of Issing with the invention of Taminato in view of Sorakado in further view of Ron.
The motivation for doing so would have been "to monitor the manipulations better and to facilitate the communication between the operator and the order-picking control," (Issing, [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Issing with Taminato in view of Sorakado in further view of Ron to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taminato (JP 2021082137 A) in view of Sorakado (JP 2019193019 A).
Regarding claim 9, Taminato discloses:
An image analysis method executed by a controller of a computer (pg. 3 para. 4, a processor executes a method which is understood as a controller of a computer), the image analysis method including: acquiring image data (pg. 6 para. 6, the estimation unit receives and analyzes image data) indicating an image of an operator performing task (pg. 6 para. 6, the image data is "of the work along the time axis of the object (worker)" which is understood as an operator performing a task);
and detecting the task performed by the operator sequentially, based on the image data (pg. 6 para. 6, "The estimation unit 105 estimates the work label of the work", assigning a "work label" is understood as detecting the type of work is in the image, i.e. "to detect the task performed by the operator"), to generate task detection information indicating a detection result of the task (pg. 6 para. 6, "and outputs the estimation result 106." pg. 7 para. 2, the estimation result is used to determine and action detection which is understood as information indicating a detection result of the task), wherein the task includes a plurality of processes performed by the operator (pg. 3 para. 6, associated with Fig. 2 detected work is detected as a "work order" comprised of individual "works". For example, the top of pg. 5 shows different orders of works completed in five different work orders. Therefore, a work order is understood as a task and is comprised of a plurality of works understood as processes), and the controller of the computer is configured to compensate the task detection information by interpolating a task detection result of the task (pg. 9 para. 2 "the dynamically added context information 21 is applied to the action detection unit 107 of the action recognition system 1, and when the detection result obtained thereby is more plausible than the first detection result, the second detection result 22 Is output." This is understood as replacing, i.e. compensating, a detection result with a more plausible detection. This is understood as an interpolation as it may fill the space between processes as shown in Fig. 9 and pg. 9 para. 3, the 3-0-3 correction fills the gap of the not detected first work 3) within an undetected period (pg. 8 para. 4, "the abnormality detection unit 201 determines the occurrence of omission of work. When the abnormality detection unit 201 determines from the first detection result that the work in the process has not been detected, it determines that a work omission has occurred", detecting an omission is understood as an undetected period because a work was missed, i.e. undetected),
the undetected period being a period in which the task is not detected (pg. 8 para. 4, "the abnormality detection unit 201 determines the occurrence of omission of work. When the abnormality detection unit 201 determines from the first detection result that the work in the process has not been detected, it determines that a work omission has occurred", detecting an omission is understood as an undetected period because a work was missed, i.e. undetected),
Taminato does not disclose expressly interpolating in accordance with one or both of a pre process and a post process, the pre process being a task before the undetected period, and the post process being a task after the undetected period.
Sorakado discloses:
in accordance with one or both of a pre process and a post process of the undetected period (pg. 22 para. last, a work section is corrected only if the first and last motion recognition sections can be trusted which is understood as in accordance with one or both of a pre process and a post process),
the pre process being a process of the task detected previously to the undetected period (pg. 21 para. 4, the first operation is described as an "end" operation which is understood as a beginning end. Therefore, it is a pre process), and the post process being a process of the task detected subsequently to the undetected period (pg. 21 para. 4, the last operation is described as an "end" operation which is understood as the completion end. Therefore, it is a post process).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the dependence on pre and post processes of Sorakado with the invention of Taminato.
The motivation for doing so would have been "the work section is corrected according to the recognition result of the operation constituting the work, so that the accuracy of the work section is improved. In addition, when the reliability of the first and last motion recognition in the motion recognition section is low, by not correcting the work section, it is possible to prevent the accuracy of the work section from being deteriorated by the correction." (Sorakado, pg. 23 para. last).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sorakado with Taminato to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is dependent on claim 9 and Taminato in view of Sorakado discloses the subject matter of claim 9.
Taminato further discloses:
A tangible non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a controller of a computer to execute the image analysis method according to claim 9 (pg. 3 para. 4, a memory stores a program for executing the method. The memory may be a ROM which is understood as a non-transitory computer readable medium as ROM is understood as non-volatile and may record information even after the processor and memory are turned off).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the closest prior art Taminato (JP 2021082137 A) in view of Sorakado (JP 2019193019 A) in further view of Ron et al. (US 11620822 B1; hereafter, Ron) discloses the subject matter of claim 2 upon which claim 3 depends but does not disclose expressly the matter of claim 3. Specifically, the closest prior art does not disclose deciding not to interpolate when the post process of the undetected period is the first process. In order to teach this limitation, a piece of prior art would require 1) an undetected period, 2) performing interpolation over an undetected period, and 3) a decision not to interpolate based on the post process of the undetected period being a first process.
The claim as whole is found non obvious over the prior art including:
wherein the controller does not interpolate the detection result of the task within the undetected period when the post process of the undetected period is the first process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Uwano et al., US 20250166361 A1, discloses a work analysis device which detects actions performed by workers in relation to identified objects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA B CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-7989. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-5pm.
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, John M Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/JOSHUA B. CROCKETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights