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
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) of claims 4 and 14 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claims 4 and 14.
It is noted that previous claim 12 depended on claim 10. While the limitations of previous claim 12 were moved up into amended claim 1, claim 10 was not included in claim 1. Thus, the scope of the invention has changed, and a new rejection may be applied.
Examiner acknowledges the amendments to the claims received on 11/26/2025 have been entered, and that no new matter has been added.
Response to Arguments
Argument 1: Applicant argues on page 7 in the filing on 11/26/2025 that the cited prior art does not teach “a second finger touching ‘while the first finger remains in contact with the touchscreen’” in amended claim 1.
Response to Argument 1: Applicant specifically argues that “a pinching motion involves two finger initially touching a screen at the same time…which does not correspond to…the first finger was in contact with the touchscreen before the second finger touched the screen.” Respectfully, The combination of Moskalonek and Shugrina teach the above.
Claim 1 recites “the second touch point corresponding to the user touching the touchscreen with a second finger while the first finger remains in contact with the touchscreen.” The broadest reasonable interpretation includes a first finger remaining in contact with the screen, when the second touch occurs. This means simultaneous contact, such as a pinch gesture, reads on this limitations. In a pinching gesture, the first finger remains in contact with the screen, when the second finger occurs. Shugrina teaches a pinching motion to mix blob colors, which involves two touch points on the touch screen at the same time [Shugrina 0032, 0035, Fig. 4A-4F, 6].
It is noted that the claims do not require “how long” the first finger must remain on the screen. The claims merely require a second finger touch “while” the first finger remains contacting the screen. Thus, simultaneous touch gestures read on this limitation. In other words, the limitation does not only mean “before,” as argued. The BRI of the limitation also includes “at the same time.” The Examiner recommends amending with “before,” or “how long,” if this is what the Applicant intends (with support from the original specification).
A pinch gesture has both fingers touching the screen. Thus, this fulfills the limitations “the second touchpoint corresponding to the user touching the touchscreen with a second finger while the first finger remains in contact with the touchscreen.” See rejection below for more details.
Argument 2: Applicant argues on page 7 that the cited prior art is “using the pinching motion to resize or rescale the color blob,” which does not teach “generating a first color responsive to receiving the first touch point and generating a second color responsive to receiving the second touch point” in claim 1.
Response to Argument 2: Respectfully, The combination of Moskalonek and Shugrina teach the above. Shugrina cited figures 4B shows before a pinch, and figure 4C shows what happens after a pinch. In figure 4C, after the pinch, the colors are both enlarged and mixed on the palette. Additional support for a pinch both enlarging and mixing can be found in Shugrina 0035, which teaches a color blob changing its size and its effect on the colors, after a pinch. The pinch changes both size and color. See rejection below for more details.
This meets the claim limitations as currently claimed, and Applicant's Arguments 1 and 2 filed on 11/26/2025 are not persuasive. Applicant’s remaining statements regarding the remaining independent and dependent claims are moot or not persuasive for the reasons stated above.
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 1-4, 8, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moskalonek et al., Patent Application Publication Number US 20130132905 A1 (hereinafter “Moskalonek”), in view of Shugrina et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20180322661 A1 (hereinafter “Shugrina”).
Claim 1: Moskalonek teaches “A system for color selection (i.e. generates a mixed color with a remote mixing controller in the first device 102 based on a mixture of inputted colors. As an example, the user may mix blue and yellow to form a mixed color [Moskalonek 0027]) for an interactive lighting system (this is interpreted as intended use), comprising:
a touchscreen configured to display a user interface (i.e. the first device may also be a touch enabled cell phone, smart phone, touch enabled laptop, or the like [Moskalonek 0021, Fig. 3-6] note: Fig. 3-6 show an interface);
a gesture receiver configured to:
receive a first touch point from the user interface, the first touch point having a first initial location and a first current location (i.e. the plurality of color indicia 304 may be red, purple blue green, yellow, and orange. A user may select one of these colors by touching the color. The user may then remove his or her finger and touch the virtual canvas 302 with his or her finger. The user may move his or her finger or fingers along the virtual canvas 302 to smear the color [Moskalonek 0028, Fig. 3A-3B] note: smear gesture has an initial location and current location); and
receive a second touch point from the user interface, the second touch point having a second initial location and a second current location (i.e. user may then select a different color by touching a different color in the plurality of color indicia 304. The user may then touch the virtual canvas 302 with his or her finger or fingers with the different color. If the user smears the different color in a location… [Moskalonek 0028, Fig. 3A-3B] note: smear gesture has an second initial location and second current location),…
a color generator configured to:
generate a first color responsive to receiving the first touch point (i.e. the plurality of color indicia 304 may be red, purple blue green, yellow, and orange. A user may select one of these colors by touching the color. The user may then remove his or her finger and touch the virtual canvas 302 with his or her finger. The user may move his or her finger or fingers along the virtual canvas 302 to smear the color [Moskalonek 0028, Fig. 3A-3B] note: first color is generated in response to the first smear); and
generate a second color responsive to receiving the second touch point (i.e. user may then select a different color by touching a different color in the plurality of color indicia 304. The user may then touch the virtual canvas 302 with his or her finger or fingers with the different color. If the user smears the different color in a location… [Moskalonek 0028, Fig. 3A-3B] note: second color is generated in response to the second smear); and
a color mixer configured to generate a mixed color (i.e. If the user smears the different color in a location that also has at least some of the initial color, then that overlapped location will display a mixed color of the two colors [Moskalonek 0028, Fig. 3A-3B]… A plurality of mixed colors generated from smearing colors is displayed on the virtual canvas 302 [Moskalonek 0031, Fig. 3B]) to be emitted by one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs) of the interactive lighting system (intended use. Furthermore, instant specification page 5 line 5 recites “interactive lighting system can control the color emitted by a plurality of dynamic color changing LEDs.” A generic computer screen consists of color changing LEDs; thus, a generic computer screen meets the limitation), wherein the mixed color is based on the first color (i.e. initial color [Moskalonek 0028, Fig. 3A-3B]), the second color (i.e. different color [Moskalonek 0028, Fig. 3A-3B]), the first initial location, the first current location, the second initial location, and the second current location (i.e. overlapped location [Moskalonek 0028, Fig. 3A-3B]… A plurality of mixed colors generated from smearing colors is displayed on the virtual canvas 302 [Moskalonek 0031, Fig. 3B] note: Fig. 3B shows a gradient of a colors, which depend on the location of the 1st and 2nd smear locations. More mixing (a current location of the colors) makes a different color than less mixing (an initial location of the colors));
wherein the user interface is configured to display the first color (i.e. initial color [Moskalonek 0028, Fig. 3A-3B]) and the second color (i.e. different color [Moskalonek 0028, Fig. 3A-3B]).”
Moskalonek is silent regarding “the first touch point corresponding to a user touching the touchscreen with a first finger, and the second touch point corresponding to the user touching the touchscreen with a second finger while the first finger remains in contact with the touchscreen”
Shugrina teaches “receive a second touch point from the user interface, the second touch point having a second initial location and a second current location, the first touch point corresponding to a user touching the touchscreen with a first finger, and the second touch point corresponding to the user touching the touchscreen with a second finger while the first finger remains in contact with the touchscreen (i.e. FIGS. 4A-4F show various interactive editing functions of an example mixing dish 400 in an interactive palette interface… a user creates a color blob in the mixing dish 400 by selecting a color from, for example, a color wheel (see, for example, color picker 606 of FIG. 6), adding the selected color to the mixing dish 400 to create the color blob, moving the color blob around using, for example… a pinching motion [Shugrina 0032, Fig. 4A-4F, 6]… FIG. 4C shows the example mixing dish 400 of FIGS. 4A-4B where the user pinches the color blob 404 to change its size and its effect on the colors of the mixing dish 400. For example, changing the size of the color blob 404, as shown in FIG. 4C, also changes the colors of the gradient 410 adjacent to the color blob 404 as compared to FIG. 4B [Shugrina 0035, Fig. 4A-4F, 6] note: a pinching motion to mix the colors involves two touch points on the touchscreen at the same time);”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Moskalonek to include the feature of having the ability to use two fingers at the same time as disclosed by Shugrina.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of accepting multiple inputs at once, which allows a more variety of inputs, which increases the amount of commands a user can perform, which increases user flexibility.
Claim 2: Moskalonek and Shugrina teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Moskalonek teaches “wherein the user interface is configured to display the mixed color (Moskalonek Fig. 3B shows the mixed colors 302).”
Claim 3: Moskalonek and Shugrina teach all the limitations of claim 2, above. Moskalonek teaches “wherein the mixed color is displayed in a background portion of the user interface (Moskalonek Fig. 3B shows the mixed colors 302 in the largest portion of the canvas, or in the background of the canvas portion of the user interface).”
Claim 4: Moskalonek and Shugrina teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Moskalonek teaches “wherein the user interface is configured to display the first color at the first touch point, and wherein the user interface is configured to display the second color at the second touch point (Moskalonek Fig. 3B shows in canvas area 302 a bottom left area for a first color’s smear, a bottom right area for a second color’s smear).”
Claim 8: Moskalonek and Shugrina teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Moskalonek teaches “wherein the color generator is configured to generate the first color based on the first initial location (i.e. overlapped location [Moskalonek 0028, Fig. 3A-3B]… A plurality of mixed colors generated from smearing colors is displayed on the virtual canvas 302 [Moskalonek 0031, Fig. 3B] note: Fig. 3B shows a gradient of a colors, which depend on the location of the 1st and 2nd smear locations. More mixing (a current location of the colors) makes a different color than less mixing (an initial location of the colors)).”
Claim 13: Moskalonek teaches “A method for color selection (i.e. generates a mixed color with a remote mixing controller in the first device 102 based on a mixture of inputted colors. As an example, the user may mix blue and yellow to form a mixed color [Moskalonek 0027]) for an interactive lighting system (this is interpreted as intended use), comprising:
displaying, via a touchscreen, a user interface (i.e. the first device may also be a touch enabled cell phone, smart phone, touch enabled laptop, or the like [Moskalonek 0021, Fig. 3-6] note: Fig. 3-6 show an interface);
receiving, via a gesture receiver, a first touch point from the user interface, the first touch point having a first initial location and a first current location, the first touch point corresponding to a user touching the touchscreen with a first finger (i.e. the plurality of color indicia 304 may be red, purple blue green, yellow, and orange. A user may select one of these colors by touching the color. The user may then remove his or her finger and touch the virtual canvas 302 with his or her finger. The user may move his or her finger or fingers along the virtual canvas 302 to smear the color [Moskalonek 0028, Fig. 3A-3B] note: smear gesture has an initial location and current location);
generating, via a color generator, a first color responsive to receiving the first touch point (i.e. the plurality of color indicia 304 may be red, purple blue green, yellow, and orange. A user may select one of these colors by touching the color. The user may then remove his or her finger and touch the virtual canvas 302 with his or her finger. The user may move his or her finger or fingers along the virtual canvas 302 to smear the color [Moskalonek 0028, Fig. 3A-3B] note: smear gesture has an initial location and current location);
receiving, via the gesture receiver, a second touch point from the user interface, the second touch point having a second initial location and a second current location (i.e. user may then select a different color by touching a different color in the plurality of color indicia 304. The user may then touch the virtual canvas 302 with his or her finger or fingers with the different color. If the user smears the different color in a location… [Moskalonek 0028, Fig. 3A-3B] note: smear gesture has an second initial location and second current location),…
generating, via the color generator, a second color responsive to receiving the second touch point (i.e. user may then select a different color by touching a different color in the plurality of color indicia 304. The user may then touch the virtual canvas 302 with his or her finger or fingers with the different color. If the user smears the different color in a location… [Moskalonek 0028, Fig. 3A-3B] note: smear gesture has an second initial location and second current location), the second color being based on the first color and a color optimizer (i.e. If the user smears the different color in a location that also has at least some of the initial color, then that overlapped location will display a mixed color of the two colors [Moskalonek 0028, Fig. 3A-3B]… A plurality of mixed colors generated from smearing colors is displayed on the virtual canvas 302 [Moskalonek 0031, Fig. 3B] note: from instant specification, a color optimizer chooses a color. Moskalonek choses the color to display when mixed);
displaying, via the user interface, the first color at the first touch point (i.e. A user may select one of these colors by touching the color. The user may then remove his or her finger and touch the virtual canvas 302 with his or her finger [Moskalonek 0028, Fig. 3A-3B]);
displaying, via the user interface, the second color at the second touch point (i.e. The user may then select a different color by touching a different color in the plurality of color indicia 304. The user may then touch the virtual canvas 302 with his or her finger or fingers with the different color [Moskalonek 0028, Fig. 3A-3B]); and
generating, via the color mixer, a mixed color (i.e. If the user smears the different color in a location that also has at least some of the initial color, then that overlapped location will display a mixed color of the two colors [Moskalonek 0028, Fig. 3A-3B]… A plurality of mixed colors generated from smearing colors is displayed on the virtual canvas 302 [Moskalonek 0031, Fig. 3B]) to be emitted by one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs) of the interactive lighting system (intended use. Furthermore, instant specification page 5 line 5 recites “interactive lighting system can control the color emitted by a plurality of dynamic color changing LEDs.” A generic computer screen consists of color changing LEDs; thus, a generic computer screen meets the limitation), the mixed color being based on the first color (i.e. initial color [Moskalonek 0028, Fig. 3A-3B]), the second color (i.e. different color [Moskalonek 0028, Fig. 3A-3B]), the first initial location, the first current location, the second initial location, and the second current location (i.e. overlapped location [Moskalonek 0028, Fig. 3A-3B]… A plurality of mixed colors generated from smearing colors is displayed on the virtual canvas 302 [Moskalonek 0031, Fig. 3B] note: Fig. 3B shows a gradient of a colors, which depend on the location of the 1st and 2nd smear locations. More mixing (a current location of the colors) makes a different color than less mixing (an initial location of the colors)).”
Moskalonek is silent regarding “the second touch point corresponding to the user touching the touchscreen with a second finger while the first finger of the user remains in contact with the touchscreen;”
Shugrina teaches “receiving, via the gesture receiver, a second touch point from the user interface, the second touch point having a second initial location and a second current location, the second touch point corresponding to the user touching the touchscreen with a second finger while the first finger of the user remains in contact with the touchscreen (i.e. FIGS. 4A-4F show various interactive editing functions of an example mixing dish 400 in an interactive palette interface… a user creates a color blob in the mixing dish 400 by selecting a color from, for example, a color wheel (see, for example, color picker 606 of FIG. 6), adding the selected color to the mixing dish 400 to create the color blob, moving the color blob around using, for example… a pinching motion [Shugrina 0032, Fig. 4A-4F, 6]… FIG. 4C shows the example mixing dish 400 of FIGS. 4A-4B where the user pinches the color blob 404 to change its size and its effect on the colors of the mixing dish 400. For example, changing the size of the color blob 404, as shown in FIG. 4C, also changes the colors of the gradient 410 adjacent to the color blob 404 as compared to FIG. 4B [Shugrina 0035, Fig. 4A-4F, 6] note: a pinching motion to mix the colors involves two touch points on the touchscreen at the same time);”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Moskalonek to include the feature of having the ability to use two fingers at the same time as disclosed by Shugrina.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of accepting multiple inputs at once, which allows a more variety of inputs, which increases the amount of commands a user can perform, which increases user flexibility.
Claim 14: Moskalonek and Shugrina teach all the limitations of claim 13, above. Moskalonek teaches “further comprising: displaying, via the user interface, the mixed color in a background portion of the user interface (Moskalonek Fig. 3B shows the mixed colors 302 in the largest portion of the canvas, or in the background of the canvas portion of the user interface).”
Claims 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moskalonek, in view of Shugrina, in view of Grant et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20190227629 A1 (hereinafter “Grant”).
Claim 5: Moskalonek and Shugrina teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Moskalonek and Shugrina are silent regarding “wherein the first touch point further has a first pressure, and wherein the second touch point further has a second pressure.”
Grant teaches “wherein the first touch point further has a first pressure, and wherein the second touch point further has a second pressure (i.e. a paint mixing application. In this embodiment, a user contacts the touch-sensitive display 230 with one finger to select a first color and contacts the touch-sensitive display 230 with a second finger to select a second color. In this embodiment, the touch-sensitive display 230 shows a third color that represents the first color being mixed with the second color. For example, if the first color is red and the second color is yellow, then the third color shown on the touch-sensitive display 230 may be orange. In some embodiments, the shade of the third color may be changed by increasing or decreasing the pressure of the contact of either the first or second finger [Grant 0064]).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Moskalonek and Shugrina to include the feature of having the ability to change colors with a pressured input as disclosed by Grant.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to change colors without using another gesture input, which increases user flexibility and reduces the number of inputs.
Claim 6: Moskalonek and Shugrina and Grant teach all the limitations of claim 5, above. Grant teaches “wherein the color mixer is configured to generate the mixed color further based on the first pressure and the second pressure (i.e. a paint mixing application. In this embodiment, a user contacts the touch-sensitive display 230 with one finger to select a first color and contacts the touch-sensitive display 230 with a second finger to select a second color. In this embodiment, the touch-sensitive display 230 shows a third color that represents the first color being mixed with the second color. For example, if the first color is red and the second color is yellow, then the third color shown on the touch-sensitive display 230 may be orange. In some embodiments, the shade of the third color may be changed by increasing or decreasing the pressure of the contact of either the first or second finger [Grant 0064]).”
One would have been motivated to combine Moskalonek and Shugrina and Grant, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to change colors without using another gesture input, which increases user flexibility and reduces the number of inputs.
Claims 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moskalonek, in view of Shugrina, in view of Sernicola, Patent Application Publication number US 20150300831 A1 (hereinafter “Sernicola”).
Claim 7: Moskalonek and Shugrina teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Moskalonek and Shugrina are silent regarding “wherein the color generator is configured to generate the first color based on a random color generator”
Sernicola teaches “wherein the color generator is configured to generate the first color based on a random color generator (i.e. the user taps on one button at the top where a disc with a random color will be generated [Sernicola 0088]).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Moskalonek and Shugrina to include the feature of having the ability generate a random color as disclosed by Sernicola.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of suggesting a plurality of different colors to the user, which increases variety, which increases user satisfaction and engagement.
Claim 9: Moskalonek and Shugrina teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Moskalonek and Shugrina are silent regarding “wherein the color generator is configured to generate the second color based on a random color generator.”
Sernicola teaches “wherein the color generator is configured to generate the second color based on a random color generator (i.e. the user taps on one button at the top where a disc with a random color will be generated [Sernicola 0088]).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Moskalonek and Shugrina to include the feature of having the ability generate a random color as disclosed by Sernicola.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of suggesting a plurality of different colors to the user, which increases variety, which increases user satisfaction and engagement.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moskalonek, in view of Shugrina, in view of Alexander et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20180124895 A1 (hereinafter “Alexander”).
Claim 10: Moskalonek and Shugrina teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Moskalonek and Shugrina are silent regarding “wherein the color generator is configured to generate the second color based on the first color and a color optimizer.”
Alexander teaches “wherein the color generator is configured to generate the second color based on the first color and a color optimizer (i.e. automatically adjusting color parameters can include color blending (e.g., color hue blending). Color blending includes automatically and/or algorithmically adding blending of a color parameter (e.g., hue) to create aesthetically pleasing transitions between user-selected…colors… at the graphical representation of the system… color parameters can be blended using: an average (e.g., weighted average…) [Alexander 0091]).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Moskalonek and Shugrina to include the feature of having the ability to automatically calculate a color as disclosed by Alexander.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to predictably and consistently create the colors that the user desires, increasing user satisfaction and user engagement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Allen (US 20140111539 A1) listed on 892 is related to color mixing, specifically using a palette.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL SHEN whose telephone number is (469)295-9169 and email address is samuel.shen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:00 am - 5:00 pm CT.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034. 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.
/S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179