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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Response to Amendments
Regarding the amendments filed 04/20/2026, the amendments have been acknowledged accepted and entered. Previously claims 1 – 15 were pending. Claim 2 has been cancelled, claims 16 – 20 have been added and claims 1, 3, 8, 14, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1 and 3 – 20 are now still currently pending. Furthermore, the amendments to the title are sufficient to overcome the objection to the specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/20/2026 with respect to claims 1, 14, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The applicant’s arguments directed towards the combination of Morisawa, Konno, and Handa resulting in an expansion of the region in which distance information is unobtainable rather than a reduction, were persuasive, however, the new grounds of rejection make the arguments moot. This action is non-final due to the new grounds of rejection that was not necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 19, the claim uses the term “the correction process” in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is the first time the term is used and has no previous explanation or structure associated with it. Therefore, the claim is rejected for lack of antecedent basis and for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the claimed invention.
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 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 of this title, 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 1, 3 – 5, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Morisawa; Keisuke et al. (US 20200175702 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Morisawa) in view of Konno; Megumi et al. (JP 2020112928 A; hereinafter simply referred to as Konno; translated via ESPACENET) further in view of Das; Debasmit et al. (US 20240273742 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Das).
Regarding independent claim 1, Morisawa teaches:
An information processing apparatus comprising: one or more hardware processors; and one or more memories storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more hardware processors (See ¶ 5, 39, 45, and 160 and figure 3B wherein an information/image processing apparatus comprises a processor, 351 in figure 3B, and a memory, 353 figure 3B, storing instructions/programs configured to be executed by the processor)
obtaining foreground information indicating a region corresponding to a foreground object in each of captured images obtained by causing a plurality of image capturing devices (camera 101a – 101r in figure 3A, also see ¶ 39 and 46) to perform image capturing, respectively, the plurality of image capturing devices configured to capture images of an image capturing region from directions varying from one another; (See ¶ 32, 34, 39, 46 claim 1, and Figure 1a – 1c, 2 and 3A wherein foreground information indicating a region (object area) corresponding to a foreground object is obtained using a plurality of cameras wherein the images from the plurality of cameras capture the object region from multiple views/angles (varying directions)
wherein in the case where the distance information is unobtainable by a first obtaining method, the distance information is obtained by a second obtaining method, and at least one of the first obtaining method and the second obtaining method uses at least part of the plurality of image capturing devices as a stereo camera to obtain the distance information. (See ¶ 63, 66-68, 74-81, 92, 37, 38, Claims 2, 3, and 5 and figures 1C, 2, 9C and 10 wherein when the image indicating the foreground area is improper (distance information for image is unobtainable as the foreground area is incorrect, therefore first method fails) a second method is performed being the processing for inhibiting the negative influence of the improper foreground mask image, wherein as seen in figure 1C and 2, a stereo vision camera setup is used).
Morisawa does not explicitly disclose obtaining distance information indicating a distance from a reference point to the foreground object; and obtaining three-dimensional shape data indicating a three-dimensional shape of the foreground object based on the foreground information and the distance information.
However, Konno teaches of obtaining distance information indicating a distance from a reference point to the foreground object, (See ¶ 43 and 134 and figure 13 wherein depth is calculated which refers to the distance (distance information) in the depth direction from the optical center of the camera (reference point), 5A in figure 13, to the foreground object)
and obtaining three-dimensional shape data indicating a three-dimensional shape of the foreground object based on the foreground information and the distance information. (See ¶ 113 – 115, 137 – 139, 3 and figure 12 wherein a three-dimensional shape data indicating a three-dimensional shape of the foreground object is obtained, being the three dimensional foreground model obtained via the separation unit, 23 in figure 12, and the foreground generation unit, 15E in figure 12, which use the silhouette image (foreground information) and depth image (distance information) to obtain the model).
As taught by Konno using foreground information and distance information to create the three-dimensional shape data allows for the separation of foreground and background to be completed even when the colors of the foreground and background are similar. (See ¶ 115 wherein the foreground and background are still able to be separated even when they comprise similar colors due to the use of distance and foreground information). As both the teachings of Morisawa and Konno deal with the technical field of image processing regarding the foreground and background of an image, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the Morisawa and Konno to teach of obtaining three-dimensional shape data indicating a three-dimensional shape of the foreground object based on the foreground information and the distance information in order for foreground and background separation to still occur even when they comprise similar colors.
Morisawa in view Konno does not explicitly disclose deciding the second obtaining method such that a region in which the distance information is unobtainable is reduced, in the case where the distance information is unobtainable by the first obtaining method, wherein in the case where the distance information is unobtainable by the first obtaining method, the distance information is obtained by the second obtaining method decided.
However, Das teaches of deciding the second obtaining method such that a region in which the distance information is unobtainable is reduced, in the case where the distance information is unobtainable by the first obtaining method, wherein in the case where the distance information is unobtainable by the first obtaining method, the distance information is obtained by the second obtaining method decided. (See ¶ 34 and 35 wherein a first method generates a sparse depth map comprising pixels with missing or invalid depth/distance values (region where distance information is unobtainable) wherein a second method is decided that performs depth completion to estimate depth values for at least a portion of the pixels having missing values, creating a dense depth map, wherein the dense depth map obtains the missing distance information therefore reducing the region of unobtainable distance information).
As taught by Das, the process of depth completion for sparse depth maps allows for more accurate depth estimation in image regions that have relatively bright colors or relatively dark colors. (See ¶ 35 wherein the process of depth completion creates more accurate depth estimation for relative brighter and darker image regions). As both the teachings of Morisawa in view of Konno deal with the technical field of image processing regarding depth information, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Morisawa in view of Konno with Das to teach of deciding the second obtaining method such that a region in which the distance information is unobtainable is reduced, in the case where the distance information is unobtainable by the first obtaining method, wherein in the case where the distance information is unobtainable by the first obtaining method, the distance information is obtained by the second obtaining method decided in order to allow for more accurate depth estimation in image regions that have relatively bright colors or relatively dark colors.
Regarding dependent claim 3, Morisawa in view of Konno and Das teaches:
The first obtaining method includes a method of obtaining the distance information by using at least part of the plurality of image capturing devices as the stereo camera, and the distance information is obtained by the second obtaining method in the case where the distance information is unobtainable by the first obtaining method using the stereo camera. (See Morisawa ¶ 63, 66-68, 74-81, 92, 37, 38, Claims 2, 3, and 5 and figures 1C, 2, 9C and 10 wherein when the image indicating the foreground area is improper (distance information for image is unobtainable as the foreground area is incorrect, therefore first method fails) a second method is performed being the processing for inhibiting the negative influence of the improper foreground mask image, wherein as seen in figure 1C and 2, a stereo vision camera setup is used for the first method).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Morisawa in view of Konno and Das teaches:
The distance information is obtained by the second obtaining method in the case where the distance information is unobtainable by the first obtaining method using the stereo camera due to an abnormality in transmission of the foreground information. (See Morisawa ¶ 37 and 38 wherein the second method is used due to an abnormality in transmission (abnormality in transmission system that causes the foreground area to not correctly represent the silhouette of an object) of the image data (foreground information)).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Morisawa in view of Konno and Das teaches:
The second obtaining method is decided based on abnormality information indicating the abnormality. (See Morisawa ¶ 37 and 38 wherein the second method is only chosen based on the abnormality occurring, as when the abnormality occurs leading to improper foreground information, the second method is implemented based on that abnormality).
Regarding independent claim 14, claim 14 is a method claim corresponding to claim 1. Please see the discussion of claim 1 above.
Regarding independent claim 15, claim 15 is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim corresponding to claim 1. Please see the discussion of claim 1 above. Furthermore, Morisawa teaches of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a program to perform a method to obtain three-dimensional shape data of an object. (See ¶ 160 and 5 wherein a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprises instructions/programs for to perform a method to obtain three-dimensional shape data of an object).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morisawa; Keisuke et al. (US 20200175702 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Morisawa) in view of Konno; Megumi et al. (JP 2020112928 A; hereinafter simply referred to as Konno Megumi; translated via ESPACENET) further in view of Das; Debasmit et al. (US 20240273742 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Das) and further in view of Handa; Masahiro et al. (US 20190356906 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Handa).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Morisawa in view of Konno and Das does not explicitly disclose:
The three-dimensional shape data is obtained by generating temporary three-dimensional shape data indicating the three-dimensional shape of the foreground object based on the foreground information and correcting the temporary three-dimensional shape data based on the distance information.
However Handa teaches of the three-dimensional shape data is obtained by generating temporary three-dimensional shape data indicating the three-dimensional shape of the foreground object based on the foreground information and correcting the temporary three-dimensional shape data based on the distance information. (See Handa ¶ 152 and 7 wherein a virtual viewpoint image is continuously corrected/updated (creating a temporary shape data that is corrected) based on new image/distance information wherein the virtual viewpoint image is created using model based rendering (MBR) which creates the three-dimensional shape data of the foreground object in the virtual viewpoint image).
As taught by Handa the three-dimensional shape data being generated temporally and then corrected based on the distance information allows for the virtual viewpoint image to be updated based on the new image data received. (See ¶ wherein the virtual viewpoint image is updated based on the new received distance information from the updated image data). As both the teachings of Morisawa in view of Konno and Das and Handa deal with the technical field of image processing for 3D model generation it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Morisawa in view of Konno and Das with Handa to teach of the three-dimensional shape data is obtained by generating temporary three-dimensional shape data indicating the three-dimensional shape of the foreground object based on the foreground information and correcting the temporary three-dimensional shape data based on the distance information in order for the virtual viewpoint image to be updated based on the new image data received.
Claims 6 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morisawa; Keisuke et al. (US 20200175702 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Morisawa) in view of Konno; Megumi et al. (JP 2020112928 A; hereinafter simply referred to as Konno Megumi; translated via ESPACENET) further in view of Das; Debasmit et al. (US 20240273742 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Das) and further in view of Sugio; Toshiyasu et al. (US 20200226794 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Sugio)
Regarding dependent claim 6, Morisawa in view of Konno and Das does not explicitly disclose:
The second obtaining method includes a method of obtaining the distance information by using at least part of the plurality of image capturing devices as the stereo camera, and the image capturing devices to be used as the stereo camera in the second obtaining method are decided from among the plurality of image capturing devices based on the abnormality information.
However, Sugio teaches of the second obtaining method includes a method of obtaining the distance information by using at least part of the plurality of image capturing devices as the stereo camera, and the image capturing devices to be used as the stereo camera in the second obtaining method are decided from among the plurality of image capturing devices based on the abnormality information. (See ¶ 177, 611 – 614, 407 wherein an alternative sensor/camera is used in the second obtaining method (used in a case wherein a first sensor/camera fails) based on the abnormality information (generated three dimensional data not meeting a threshold) wherein the second method uses a stereo camera from among a plurality of combinations of image capturing devices).
As taught by Sugio the use of an alternative emergency camera/sensor in the case of a failing sensor/camera allows for a vehicle to continue to operate after the first sensor/camera malfunctions. (See ¶ 611 – 615 wherein an alternative sensor/camera is used when the first camera/sensor malfunctions allowing for the vehicle to continue to operate at full capacity). As both the teachings of Morisawa in view of Konno and Das and Sugio deal with the technical field of image processing regarding three-dimensional data, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Morisawa in view of Konno and Das with Sugio to teach of the second obtaining method includes a method of obtaining the distance information by using at least part of the plurality of image capturing devices as the stereo camera, and the image capturing devices to be used as the stereo camera in the second obtaining method are decided from among the plurality of image capturing devices based on the abnormality information in order for a vehicle/system to continue to operate with the use of alternate cameras/sensors in case of a camera/sensor failure.
Regarding dependent claim 7, Morisawa in view of Konno and Das does not explicitly disclose:
The second obtaining method includes a method of obtaining the distance information based on output from a range sensor, and the range sensor to be used in the second obtaining method is decided based on the abnormality information.
However, Sugio teaches of the second obtaining method includes a method of obtaining the distance information based on output from a range sensor, and the range sensor to be used in the second obtaining method is decided based on the abnormality information. (See ¶ 177, 611 – 614, 3, 407, 455, 542 wherein an alternative sensor/camera is used in the second obtaining method (used in a case wherein a first sensor/camera fails) based on the abnormality information (generated three dimensional data not meeting a threshold), wherein the alternative sensor is a rangefinder (range sensor)).
As taught by Sugio the use of an alternative emergency camera/sensor (range sensor) in the case of a failing sensor/camera allows for a vehicle to continue to operate after the first sensor/camera malfunctions. (See ¶ 611 – 615 wherein an alternative sensor/camera is used when the first camera/sensor malfunctions allowing for the vehicle to continue to operate at full capacity). As both the teachings of Morisawa in view of Konno and Das and Sugio deal with the technical field of image processing regarding three-dimensional data, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Morisawa in view of Konno and Das with Sugio to teach of the second obtaining method includes a method of obtaining the distance information based on output from a range sensor, and the range sensor to be used in the second obtaining method is decided based on the abnormality information in order for a vehicle/system to continue to operate with the use of alternate cameras/sensors (range sensor) in case of a camera/sensor failure.
Regarding dependent claim 8, Morisawa in view of Konno and Das teaches:
The distance information is obtained by the second obtaining method in the case where the distance information is unobtainable by the first obtaining method. (See Morisawa ¶ 37, 38, Claims 2, 3, and 5 wherein when the image indicating the foreground area is improper (distance information for image is unobtainable as the foreground area is incorrect, therefore first method fails) a second method is performed being the processing for inhibiting the negative influence of the improper foreground mask image).
Morisawa in view of Konno and Das does not explicitly disclose the first obtaining method includes a method of obtaining the distance information based on output from a range sensor.
However, Sugio teaches of the first obtaining method includes a method of obtaining the distance information based on output from a range sensor (See ¶ 3, 407, 455, 542, 611 – 614, wherein distance information is obtained via a rangefinder (range sensor) wherein there are a plurality of sensor/camera options that can be alternated for different cases such as camera/sensor failure).
As taught by Sugio the use of a rangefinder/range sensor to obtain distance information allows for a self-location estimation by a vehicle to be implemented. (See ¶ 542 wherein the use of a rangefinder allows for the implementation of self-location estimation by a vehicle). As both the teachings of Morisawa in view of Konno and Das and Sugio deal with the technical field of image processing regarding three-dimensional data, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Morisawa in view of Konno and Das with Sugio to teach of the first obtaining method includes a method of obtaining the distance information based on output from a range sensor in order to implement self-location estimation by a vehicle.
Regarding dependent claim 9, Morisawa in view of Konno and Das and Sugio teaches:
The distance information is obtained by the second obtaining method in the case where the distance information is unobtainable by the first obtaining method using the range sensor due to a sensor abnormality in the distance information based on the output from the range sensor. (See Sugio ¶ 611, 612, 613, 542, 606 wherein when the rangefinder fails to meet a reference value threshold for accuracy (abnormality in distance information) a second obtaining method being an alternate/emergency sensor/camera is used.)
Regarding dependent claim 10, Morisawa in view of Konno, Das and Sugio teaches:
The second obtaining method is decided based on sensor abnormality information indicating the sensor abnormality. (See Sugio ¶ 611, 612, 613, 542, 606 wherein when the rangefinder fails to meet a reference value threshold for accuracy (abnormality in distance information indicating abnormality in the sensor) a second obtaining method being an alternate/emergency sensor/camera is used.)
Regarding dependent claim 11, Morisawa in view of Konno, Das and Sugio teaches:
The second obtaining method includes a method of obtaining the distance information by using at least part of the plurality of image capturing devices as the stereo camera, and the image capturing devices to be used as the stereo camera in the second obtaining method are decided from among the plurality of image capturing devices based on the abnormality information. (See Sugio ¶ 177, 611 – 614, 3, 542, 613, 648, 407 wherein an alternative sensor/camera is used in the second obtaining method (used in a case wherein a first sensor/camera fails) based on the abnormality information (generated three dimensional data not meeting a threshold) wherein the first method uses a rangefinder (range sensor in the form of LiDAR) and the second method uses a stereo camera from among a plurality of combinations of image capturing devices).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Morisawa in view of Konno, Das and Sugio teaches:
The range sensor is a sensor configured to measure a distance to an object by observing reflected light of emitted light. (See Sugio ¶ 542, 613, 648 wherein the range sensor is a sensor configured to measure a distance to an object by observing reflected light of emitted light represented by LiDAR sensors).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Morisawa; Keisuke et al. (US 20200175702 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Morisawa) in view of Konno; Megumi et al. (JP 2020112928 A; hereinafter simply referred to as Konno; translated via ESPACENET) further in view of Das; Debasmit et al. (US 20240273742 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Das), and further in view of Takashi; Yuji et al. (JP 2015232455 A, translated via Espacenet; hereinafter simply referred to as Takashi).
Regarding dependent claim 20, Morisawa in view of Konno and Das does not explicitly disclose:
The distance information includes a distance image generated by calculating SAD (sum of absolute difference) as a pixel correlation in stereo matching, obtaining disparity based on the correlation, and converting the disparity into a distance based on a focal length and a baseline length.
However, Takashi teaches of the distance information includes a distance image generated by calculating SAD (sum of absolute difference) as a pixel correlation in stereo matching, obtaining disparity based on the correlation, and converting the disparity into a distance based on a focal length and a baseline length. (See ¶ 33 - 39, 23, 72 - 75, 4, equation 1, and figures 7, 14, wherein the distance information includes a distance image, (distance image from stereo cameras) generated by calculating SAD as a pixel correlation in stereo matching, obtaining disparity (disparity ‘d’) based on the correlation, and converting the disparity into a distance (distance parallax) based on the focal length (focal length f) and baseline length (baseline length b)).
As taught by Takashi the use of the distance information includes a distance image generated by calculating SAD (sum of absolute difference) as a pixel correlation in stereo matching, obtaining disparity based on the correlation, and converting the disparity into a distance based on a focal length and a baseline length allows for a lower computational load to be required when determining the distance to neighboring objects. (See ¶ 9, wherein the computational load is suppressed while measuring the distance to neighboring properties). As both the teachings of Morisawa in view of Konno and Das and Takashi deal with the technical field of image processing regarding obtaining distance information, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Morisawa in view of Konno and Das with Takashi to teach of the distance information includes a distance image generated by calculating SAD (sum of absolute difference) as a pixel correlation in stereo matching, obtaining disparity based on the correlation, and converting the disparity into a distance based on a focal length and a baseline length in order to allow for a lower computational load to be required when determining the distance to neighboring objects
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 - 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indications of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 16, the reason of allowable subject matter is that the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest the limitations of claims 1 further comprising wherein the distance information is a distance image, and obtaining the three-dimensional shape data includes a correction process that converts a point constituting the three-dimensional shape data into an imaging coordinate system corresponding to the reference point to obtain a distance of the point, compares the obtained distance with a distance value of a projected pixel corresponding to the point in the distance image, and deletes or adds the point based on a mismatch between the distances.
Regarding claim 17, the reason of allowable subject matter is that the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest the limitations of claim 1, further comprising wherein abnormality information for determining that the distance information is unobtainable is represented as a bit string having a bit corresponding to each of the plurality of image capturing devices, and a pair of image capturing devices to be used in the second obtaining method is selected based on a bit value of the bit string.
Regarding claim 18, the reason of allowable subject matter is that the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest the limitations of claim 1, further comprising wherein a stereo camera to be used in the second obtaining method is selected by a correspondence table stored in advance, and the correspondence table includes: a first image capturing device ID and a second image capturing device ID that identify a stereo pair; a group ID based on a degree of overlap of fields of view; and an identifier indicating an original of an alternative.
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 19, the reason of allowable subject matter is that the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest the limitations of claim 1, further comprising wherein the reference point is an optical center of an image capturing device on a predetermined side among a pair of image capturing devices used as a stereo camera, and the correction process of the three-dimensional shape data is performed by comparing a distance obtained by projecting the three-dimensional shape data onto the image capturing device on the predetermined side with the distance information.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights