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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)–(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on June 24, 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP § 609, and therefore has been placed in the application file. The information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Objections
The Office objects to the following claims for having informalities discussed herein. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2 and 4–6
Claims 2 and 4–6 refer back to the elements of parent claim 1 in a manner that raises ambiguities about what the dependent claims are actually attempting to further limit.
Each of these claims include the phrase “wherein the in response to a first operation, publishing a virtual object completely contained in the publishing container,” making it unclear which part of that element from parent claim 1 should be read as the insertion point of further text of each dependent claim—is it the point where the method decides to respond to the first operation, or is it after the decision to respond but before the response is actually made?
Each of these claims also follow that phrase by resetting the reference to the first operation back to the indefinite article, i.e., “in response to a first operation on the virtual object.” This raises ambiguity about whether each claim is now referring to a new duplicate first operation, or if the claim is referring back to the original first operation recited in claim 1. Such ambiguity about the number of elements must be clarified. See MPEP § 2173.05(o) (“where a claim directed to a device can be read to include the same element twice, the claim may be indefinite”).
Claims 4 and 5 have additional informalities, which will be reflected in the corrections suggested below.
The following corrections should be made:
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the [[in]] response to [[a]] the first operationfurther comprises:
4. The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
subsequent to the first operation, but prior to publishing the virtual object, receiving a publishing instruction
5. The method according to claim 4, wherein the publishing instruction
receiving a second operation on a publishing control
or,
receiving a [[third]] second operation on a first control displayed at a preset position of the publishing container, displaying comprising a publishing controlthird operation on the publishing control in the interaction panel, publishing the virtual object.
6. The method according to claim 2, wherein:
the
moving the virtual object into the publishing container comprises moving the the center position of the publishing container.
Claim 8
Claim 8’s use of alternative limitations is very difficult to parse. For example, it is unclear which limitations are meant to be alternatives of one another (e.g., if the preset period of time is required, then it’s not clear if the preset special effect embodiment is also present).
Claim 8 is also unclear because its parent claim 7 requires the prompt to display “when” the partial area is detected outside the publishing container, and since claim 8 depends from claim 7, claim 8 carries that requirement as well—yet claim 8 also requires a preset period to pass before displaying the prompt information, thus raising a contradiction.
Lastly, the final “wherein” clause is duplicative, because claims 7 and 8 already require the virtual object to be detected outside the publishing container
It is recommended that the Applicant split claim 8 into two different claims, or at least amend claim 8 in one of the following ways:
8. (Suggestion A) The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
when a partial area of the virtual object is detected to be located outside the publishing container and no operation on the virtual object is detected within a preset period of time, displaying prompt information; or,
when a partial area of the virtual object is detected to be located outside the publishing container, controlling the virtual object whose partial area is located outside the publishing container to display a preset special effect of peripheral blinking or highlighting of the virtual object, and/or controlling the publishing container to display a preset special effect[[,]] of
8. (Suggestion B) The method according to claim 7, further comprising
while the partial area of the virtual object is located outside the publishing container, controlling the virtual object to display a preset special effect of peripheral blinking or highlighting of the virtual object, and/or controlling the publishing container to display a preset special effect of at least one of: a change in color of an edge of the publishing container, a change in color of an exceeding area of the virtual object on the publishing container, or a change in color of an exceeding surface of the virtual object on the publishing container; or
waiting for a preset period of time to pass with no operation on the virtual object while the before displaying the prompt information[[;]]
[[or,]]
Claim 11
Claim 11 contains several informalities, and is difficult to align its elements with the elements it is further limiting from the parent claim. It should be rewritten as follows:
11. The method according to claim 1, wherein a skeletal structure of a virtual item is displayed in the publishing container, the skeletal structure of the virtual item comprises a plurality of skeletal nodes, and[[;]]
the [[in]] response to [[a]] the first operation[[,]] of publishing a virtual object completely contained in the publishing container[[,]] further comprises:
determining that the virtual object is mounted on the skeletal node, based on detecting that the virtual object overlaps a corresponding skeletal node of the plurality of skeletal nodes; and
the corresponding skeletal node
Claim 12
The form of claim 12 raises similar problems as those raised above for claims 2 and 4–6.
In addition, claim 12 lacks antecedent basis for “the combined object,” because the term that claim 12 first uses for this element is “the combined virtual object.”
The Examiner recommends amending claim 12 as follows:
12. The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
displaying one or more additional virtual objects;
in response to the first operation, publishing a combined virtual object, the combined object comprising the virtual object and the one or more additional
s of the combined virtual object.
Claim 13
The form of claim 13 raises similar problems as those raised above for claims 2 and 4–6. The Examiner recommends the following:
13. The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
displaying one or more additional virtual objects completely contained in the publishing container; and
in response to the first operation, publishing a plurality of independent virtual objects, each independent virtual object corresponding to a virtual object completely contained in the publishing container.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–10, 12, 13, and 15–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0095634 A1 (“Alexander”).
Claim 1
Alexander discloses:
A method for publishing a virtual object, comprising:
“FIG. 5 illustrates an example method 500 associated with interacting with a personal space in a shared three-dimensional user interface,” Alexander ¶ 54, including interactions that cause a private content item to become visible to a plurality of other users. Alexander Abstract.
displaying a publishing container
“At block 502, the example method 500 can present a shared three-dimensional computing environment to a plurality of users.” Alexander ¶ 55.
and at least one virtual object,
Simultaneously with the presentation of the shared three-dimensional computing environment, at block 504, the method can also present a “personal space” that comprises “one or more content items visible only to the current user.” Alexander ¶ 55.
the publishing container being a 3D polyhedron;
As shown in FIG. 4A, the three-dimensional computing environment 404 may be “represented as a three-dimensional room.” Alexander ¶ 49.
and in response to a first operation, publishing a virtual object completely contained in the publishing container.
“At block 506, the example method 500 can move a first content item of the one or more content items from the personal space to the shared three-dimensional computing environment based on a second user input by the current user, wherein the moving the first content item from the personal space to the shared three-dimensional computing environment causes the first content item to be visible to the plurality of users.” Alexander ¶ 55.
Claim 2
Alexander discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the in response to a first operation, publishing a virtual object completely contained in the publishing container comprises:
in response to a first operation on the virtual object, moving the virtual object into the publishing container; and
“At block 506, the example method 500 can move a first content item of the one or more content items from the personal space to the shared three-dimensional computing environment based on a second user input by the current user.” Alexander ¶ 55.
in response to detecting that the virtual object is completely contained in the publishing container, publishing the virtual object.
“[T]he moving the first content item from the personal space to the shared three-dimensional computing environment causes the first content item to be visible to the plurality of users.” Alexander ¶ 55.
Claim 3
Alexander discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein before the displaying at least one virtual object, the method further comprises:
creating the virtual object in the publishing container, wherein the virtual object created is completely contained in the publishing container.
“In certain embodiments, [a] task bar may be located within a particular area of the three-dimensional computing environment,” and “the user can create new content items” from the task bar. Alexander ¶ 33.
Claim 4
Alexander discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the in response to a first operation, publishing a virtual object completely contained in the publishing container comprises:
in response to receiving a publishing instruction, publishing the virtual object.
In a case where the content item that the user dragged into the shared environment contains a video, the user may need to perform a second operation of “tapping on the content item 434 to begin playing the video” for all of the users in the shared space. Alexander ¶ 52. Note that in this example, while the content item 434 that represents the video was already published to the other users, the other users do not begin to see the rest of the video in its entirety, until the original user taps on the content item 434 to cause the video to play.
Claim 5
Alexander discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the in response to receiving a publishing instruction, publishing the virtual object comprises:
in response to a second operation on a publishing control, publishing the virtual object, wherein the publishing control is displayed at a preset position of the publishing container; or, receiving a third operation on a first control and displaying an interaction panel, wherein a publishing control is displayed on the interaction panel, the first control is displayed at a preset position of the publishing container; and in response to a second operation on the publishing control, publishing the virtual object.
“In this example scenario 400, the content item 434 contains a video that the user can now play on the monitor 440 and the projection screen 442 by tapping on the content item 434 to begin playing the video.” Alexander ¶ 52. This corresponds to the claimed second operation, and since Alexander discloses the second operation, Alexander does not need to further disclose the other side of the disjunctive statement to anticipate this claim.
Claim 6
Alexander discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the in response to a first operation on the virtual object, moving the virtual object into the publishing container comprises:
in response to a moving operation on the virtual object, moving the virtual object into the publishing container; or, in response to the first operation on the virtual object, moving a center position of the virtual object to a center position of the publishing container.
“At block 506, the example method 500 can move a first content item of the one or more content items from the personal space to the shared three-dimensional computing environment based on a second user input by the current user.” Alexander ¶ 55.
Claim 7
Claim 7 has two elements: (1) the entirety of claim 1, incorporated by reference, and (2) the conditional limitation of, “when a partial area of the virtual object is detected to be located outside the publishing container, displaying prompt information.”
Alexander discloses element (1) for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 1, and hereby reincorporated by reference.
Alexander does not need to disclose element (2) in order to anticipate claim 7, because “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” MPEP § 2111.04 (subsection II.). In this case, claim 7 is a method claim, and element (2) is a contingent limitation, where “displaying prompt information” is contingent upon the unmet condition precedent of “when a partial area of the virtual object is detected to be located outside the publishing container.” This condition precedent is unmet, because there is not a separate preceding step of “detecting that a partial area of the virtual object is located outside the publishing container.”
Since not every run of claim 7 requires the virtual object be located outside the publishing container, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 7 is that it does not include element (2), since performance of element (2) is not required when the condition precedent is not met.
Accordingly, since Alexander at least discloses each and every required element of claim 7, Alexander anticipates claim 7.
Claim 8
Claim 8 has two elements: (1) the entirety of claim 7, incorporated by reference, and (2) two alternative conditional limitations with the same unmet condition precedent of “when a partial area of the virtual object is detected to be located outside the publishing container.”
Alexander discloses element (1) for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 1, and hereby reincorporated by reference.
Alexander does not need to disclose element (2) in order to anticipate claim 8, because “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” MPEP § 2111.04 (subsection II.). In this case, claim 8 is a method claim, and element (2) recites two contingent limitations, each of which are contingent upon an unmet condition precedent.
Since not every run of claim 8 requires the virtual object be located outside the publishing container, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 8 is that it does not include element (2), since performance of element (2) is not required when the condition precedent is not met.
Accordingly, since Alexander at least discloses each and every required element of claim 8, Alexander anticipates claim 8.
Claim 9
Alexander discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
in response to a moving operation on the virtual object, moving a position of the virtual object, causing the virtual object to be completely contained in the publishing container; and/or,
“At block 506, the example method 500 can move a first content item of the one or more content items from the personal space to the shared three-dimensional computing environment based on a second user input by the current user, wherein the moving the first content item from the personal space to the shared three-dimensional computing environment causes the first content item to be visible to the plurality of users.” Alexander ¶ 55.
in response to an adjustment operation on the virtual object, adjusting a size of the virtual object, causing the virtual object to be completely contained in the publishing container.
Additionally, “the user can share content with other users by displaying it on the monitor 440 or on the projection screen 442. In FIG. 4E, the user has displayed the content item 434 on the monitor 440, and is also moving the content item 434 towards the projection screen 442 to project the content item 434 on the projection screen 442.” Alexander ¶ 52.
Claim 10
Claim 10 has two elements: (1) the entirety of claim 1, incorporated by reference, and (2) the conditional limitation of, “in response to detecting that a target model touches an edge of the publishing container, controlling a touching area or a surface where the touching area is located to be displayed differently from other areas of the publishing container, wherein the target model is a virtual model of a controller corresponding to an extended reality scenario.”
Alexander discloses element (1) for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 1, and hereby reincorporated by reference.
Alexander does not need to disclose element (2) in order to anticipate claim 10, because “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” MPEP § 2111.04 (subsection II.). In this case, claim 10 is a method claim, and element (2) is a contingent limitation, where “controlling a touching area or a surface where the touching area is located to be displayed differently from other areas of the publishing container, wherein the target model is a virtual model of a controller corresponding to an extended reality scenario” is contingent upon the unmet condition precedent of “in response to detecting that a target model touches an edge of the publishing container.” This condition precedent is unmet, because there is not a separate preceding step of “detecting that a target model touches an edge of the publishing container.” In other words, claim 10 says what to do if a target model touches an edge, rather than saying that the target model does always touch an edge at least one during every iteration of claim 10.
Since not every run of claim 10 requires a target model touch an edge of the publishing container, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 10 is that it does not include element (2), since performance of element (2) is not required when the condition precedent is not met.
Accordingly, since Alexander at least discloses each and every required element of claim 10, Alexander anticipates claim 10.
Claim 12
Alexander discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein a plurality of virtual objects are completely contained in the publishing container;
In addition to the first content item, the shared three-dimensional computing environment 404 may further include a representation of “a monitor 440” or “a projection screen 442.” Alexander ¶ 52 (referring to FIG. 4D).
the in response to a first operation, publishing a virtual object completely contained in the publishing container, comprises: in response to the first operation, publishing a combined virtual object, the combined object comprising the plurality of virtual objects completely contained in the publishing container; wherein the in response to the first operation, publishing a combined virtual object, comprises: in response to the first operation, publishing each virtual object completely contained in the publishing container as a sub virtual object of the combined virtual object.
“In FIG. 4E, the user has displayed the content item 434 on the monitor 440, and is also moving the content item 434 towards the projection screen 442 to project the content item 434 on the projection screen 442. For example, the user can present the content item 434 on the monitor 440 or the projection screen 442 by holding the content item 434 near the monitor 440 or the projection screen 442 for a period of time.” Alexander ¶ 52.
Claim 13
Alexander discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein a plurality of virtual objects are completely contained in the publishing container; the in response to a first operation, publishing a virtual object completely contained in the publishing container, comprises: in response to the first operation, publishing a plurality of independent virtual objects, each independent virtual object corresponding to a virtual object completely contained in the publishing container.
As shown in FIG. 3C, the user can place more than merely one item into the three dimensional virtual environment. Alexander ¶ 48. This is in contrast to the example given in the rejection of claim 12, where there was more than one object in the virtual space, but the two were dependent upon one another (e.g., dragging a personal content item into the environment and onto the projector causes it to be linked to the projector).
Claim 15
Alexander discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein the publishing container is a transparent entity or a translucent entity.
As shown throughout the figures, the shared three-dimensional environment is displayed in such a way that one can still see the content items that are placed inside it.
Claim 16
Alexander discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the displaying a publishing container comprises:
in response to a summoning instruction with respect to the publishing container, displaying the publishing container;
Alexander discloses that the user can perform an input that causes the system to toggle back to the shared three-dimensional computing environment, Alexander ¶ 51, after having previously blurred the shared three-dimensional computing environment by opening the personal space 428. Alexander ¶ 50. That is, by leaving the personal space 428 in which the shared three-dimensional computing environment is blurred, the shared three-dimensional computing environment is displayed normally.
and the method further comprises: in response to a closing instruction with respect to the publishing container, hiding the publishing container.
Likewise, as mentioned above, when the user “select[] the personal space icon 425 to open up a personal space 428, . . . all elements outside the personal space 428 (including, for example, the computing environment and any public content items within the computing environment) are visually de-emphasized. For example, all elements outside the personal space 428 can be blurred and/or desaturated.” Alexander ¶ 50.
Claim 17
Alexander discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein the virtual object is a user-defined object.
“[A] user can create new content items.” Alexander ¶ 31.
Claims 18 and 19
Claim 18 recites a general purpose computer that otherwise performs exactly the same method as claim 1. Claim 18 is therefore rejected over the findings provided in the rejection of claim 1, together with Alexander’s further disclosure of the general purpose computer, its processor, its memory, and the instructions stored thereon. See Alexander ¶¶ 86–87.
Claim 19 recites a broader version of claim 18, requiring only the memory and (described even more broadly as a “non-transient computer-readable storage medium”) its instructions. Claim 19 is therefore rejected over all of the findings and rationale provided in the rejection of claim 18.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
I. Alexander and Chen teach claim 11.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chinese Patent Application Publication no. 115115814 A (“Chen”).
An English machine translation for this document is available at the following link, and is also attached to this Office Action: https://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=CN&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=115115814&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=zh&TRGLANG=en
Claim 11
Alexander teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein a
In addition to the first content item, the shared three-dimensional computing environment 404 may further include a representation of “a monitor 440” or “a projection screen 442.” Alexander ¶ 52 (referring to FIG. 4D).
the in response to a first operation, publishing a virtual object completely contained in the publishing container, comprises: in response to the first operation, publishing the virtual object completely contained in the publishing container and mounted on a corresponding
“In FIG. 4E, the user has displayed the content item 434 on the monitor 440, and is also moving the content item 434 towards the projection screen 442 to project the content item 434 on the projection screen 442.” Alexander ¶ 52. In other words, the content item 434 is displayed in the environment as attached to (or “mounted on”) the projection screen 442.
and the method further comprises: in response to detecting that the virtual object overlaps the
“For example, the user can present the content item 434 on the monitor 440 or the projection screen 442 by holding the content item 434 near the monitor 440 or the projection screen 442 for a period of time.” Alexander ¶ 52.
Thus, the difference between claim 11 and Alexander is structure of the virtual item including a skeletal structure, with the mounting corresponding to skeletal nodes.
Chen, however, teaches: a method wherein:
a skeletal structure of a virtual item is displayed
“As shown in Figure 4, by selecting ‘bipedal animal’ under ‘object type’ in the operation box on the right, the corresponding skeleton can be created on the left.” Chen ¶ 121.
the skeletal structure of the virtual item comprises a plurality of skeletal nodes;
“As shown in Figure 4(c), the points and surfaces in the box represent model points and surfaces near the model's leg bones.” Chen ¶ 121.
and the method further comprises: in response to detecting that the virtual object overlaps the skeletal node, determining that the virtual object is mounted on the skeletal node.
“Model points and surfaces near the bones can be selected for skinning.” Chen ¶ 121.
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 Alexander with Chen, thereby making it possible to mount skins on skeletal model, and share the same with other users in a 3d environment (similar to how Alexander includes means for mounting content onto other objects, and sharing the mounted content with others in the environment). One would have been motivated to combine Chen with Alexander because Chen’s skeletal structure technique helps users “create excellent and exquisite motion content.” Chen ¶ 121.
II. Alexander and Ording teach claim 14.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0288860 A1 (“Ording”).
Claim 14
Alexander teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose whether a size of the publishing container is determined based on a size threshold of a virtual object in an application.
Ording, however, teaches an analogous technique of determining a size of a container that can receive virtual objects,
wherein a size of the publishing container is determined based on a size threshold of a virtual object in an application.
“Items can be added to the userbar 600 by dragging them into the userbar's content region. During a drag, if the cursor 610 enters the region of the userbar 600, the userbar 600 will expand, e.g., at the nearest point between two existing tiles, to accommodate the item(s) being dragged. This permits new items to be inserted at any position in the bar.” Ording ¶ 67 (emphasis added). In other words, Oding teaches a technique for accommodating an item that is being dragged by making a space that is large enough to fit a dragged object of the same size.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Alexander’s method with Ording’s technique of enlarging the destination of a dragged content item, in order to fit the content item. For example, this technique could have been applied to Alexander’s monitor 440 or projection screen 442, such that personal content items dragged to one of those targets would fit when the monitor 440 or projection screen 442 enlarges to match the size of the content item. One would have been motivated to modify Alexander according to this technique based on an explicitly recognized “need in the art to design a GUI which provides the user with a larger degree of flexibility in terms of both the layout of the tool which manages these types of frequently used objects, as well as permitting a larger number of such objects to be managed and simultaneously displayed.” Ording ¶ 20.
Other Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20120249741 A1 and US 20120194548 A1 each teach variations of augmented reality applications that facilitate sharing of a virtual object by placing the object in a designated area, much like the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm 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, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151