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 .
This office action is responsive to communication filed on March 12, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on March 12, 2026 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, (see Remarks, pages 1-4, filed on March 12, 2026 and Examiner interview, March 16, 2026), with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection. These arguments are deemed not persuasive.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-11, and 15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-11 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/634,602 in view of Gandhi et al., (Gandhi), U.S. Patent No. 20240236259 A1 and further view of Olivieri et al. (Olivieri), US PGPUB 20230117301 A1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The table(s) below shows a sample of how each of these claims are mapped to the claims of the related application.
Instant Application: 18/634,611
Co-pending Application: 18/634,602
Exemplary Claim 1: A method, comprising: obtaining, by generative artificial intelligence software, during a video conference to which a first participant device and a second participant device are connected, a natural language unput from the first participant device via a graphical user interface of the video conference, wherein video streams of the first participant device and the second participant device initially use different background images for the video conference; generating, by the generative artificial intelligence software during the video conference, a virtual background image based on the natural language input; and asserting the virtual background image simultaneously against the first participant device and the second participant device to cause the video streams of the first participant device and the second participant device to use the virtual background image during the video conference.
Claim 1. A method, comprising: obtaining, by generative artificial intelligence software during a video conference, input associated with a participant of the video conference; generating, by the generative artificial intelligence software, a virtual background image for the participant based on the input; and outputting the virtual background image for use within a video stream of the participant during the video conference.
Claim 1-2, 5, 7-11, and 15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 15 of copending Application No. 18/634,606 in view of Gandhi et al., (Gandhi), U.S. Patent No. 20240236259 A1 and further view of Olivieri et al. (Olivieri), US PGPUB 20230117301 A1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The table(s) below shows a sample of how each of these claims are mapped to the claims of the related application.
Instant Application: 18/634,611
Co-pending Application: 18/634,606
Exemplary Claim 1: A method, comprising: obtaining, by generative artificial intelligence software, during a video conference to which a first participant device and a second participant device are connected, a natural language unput from the first participant device via a graphical user interface of the video conference, wherein video streams of the first participant device and the second participant device initially use different background images for the video conference; generating, by the generative artificial intelligence software during the video conference, a virtual background image based on the natural language input; and asserting the virtual background image simultaneously against the first participant device and the second participant device to cause the video streams of the first participant device and the second participant device to use the virtual background image during the video conference.
1. A method, comprising: determining, by generative artificial intelligence software evaluating content of a video conference, one or more key points related to the video conference; updating, by the generative artificial intelligence software, a virtual background image of a participant of the video conference to include one or more visual elements representing the one or more key points; and outputting the updated virtual background image for use within a video stream of the participant during the video conference.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11, 15, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kare et al. (Kare), US PGPUB 20240056322 in view of Gandhi et al., (Gandhi), U.S. Patent No. 20240236259 A1 and further view of Olivieri et al. (Olivieri), US PGPUB 20230117301 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kare discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Kare discloses a method (see Kare, Abstract, Methods and systems disclosed herein describe generating virtual backgrounds for video communications. A virtual background generator may monitor a user's calendar and/or inbox for meetings. The virtual background generator may analyze the context of calendar invites and/or scheduled meetings to generate one or more virtual backgrounds for a video conference…), comprising: obtaining, by generative artificial intelligence software, during a video conference to which a first participant device and a second participant device are connected, (see Kare, Fig. 6, steps 610-660 and para. 0007, 0062, Kare discloses the process for updating a background during a meeting. Fig. 6, step 610. 958 reciting “In step 610, a computing device may receive one or more streams of data from one or more devices attending the meeting.” Further, reciting “The machine learning model may analyze the inputs using a generative adversarial network, a bidirectional generative adversarial network, an adversarial autoencoder, or an equivalent thereof.”); generating, by the generative artificial intelligence software, during the video conference, a virtual background image based on the input (Fig. 6, step 610, para.0058; see Kare, Fig. 6, 7A-7B, Fig. 6, steps 650 and 660. Para. 64 Kare discloses reciting “In step 650, the computing device, using the machine learning model, may use the word embeddings to generate a second background . . . In one example, a user's second background.”). However, Kare does not explicitly discloses a natural language input from the first participant device via a graphical user interface of the video conference, wherein video streams of the first participant device and the second participant device initially use different background images for the video conference, a virtual background image based on a natural language input.
But, in the same field of endeavor, Gandhi discloses a natural language input from the first participant device via a graphical user interface of the video conference, wherein video streams of the first participant device and the second participant device initially use different background images for the video conference, a virtual background image based on a natural language input (Gandhi, 0020-0025, 0032, 0040, 0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have implemented Gandhi’s AI based virtual background based on a user description or profile. However, Kare-Gandhi does not explicitly discloses asserting the virtual background image simultaneously against the first participant device and the second participant device to cause the video streams of the first device and the second participant device to use the virtual background during the video conference.
In the same field of endeavor, Olivieri and asserting the virtual background image simultaneously against the first participant device and the second participant device to cause the video streams of the first device and the second participant device to use the virtual background during the video conference (see Olivieri, 0047, 0048, 0108, 0132). (It does not exclude the participants from having the same virtual background.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have implemented Olivieri’s system with the system of Kare-Gandhi which would have improved the overall user experience to overcome any problems that might arise in the utilizing of a system that includes virtual backgrounds.
Regarding claim 2, Kare-Gandhi and Olivieri discloses the method of claim 1, wherein virtual background image based on the language input comprises: determining, using a real-time transcription of the video conference, the ; and generating the virtual background image based on the natural language input and the conversational context (para. 0006 and 0060, Kare discloses Methods and systems disclosed herein may use machine learning to automatically generate a background image for use as a virtual background by participants during (real-time) a video communication (e.g., virtual meeting). Furthermore, Kare discloses the analysis of the one or more streams may comprise transcribing an audio stream. Transcribing the audio stream may include using a speech-to-text algorithm. The transcribed text may then be analyzed using a natural language processing technique, such as sentiment analysis, keyword extraction, term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF), or an equivalent thereof in addition to an audio stream may be analyzed to determine the topics being discussed (real-time), while a video stream may be analyzed, at the same time, to identify one or more gestures from a user, which may cause a presentation to advance to a new slide. As noted, the audio stream may be transcribed using a speech-to-text algorithm).
Regarding claim 5, Kare-Gandhi and Olivieri discloses the method of claim 1, wherein generating the virtual background image based on the natural language input (see rejection of claim 1 above) comprises: generating the virtual background image based on the natural language input (see rejection of claim 1 above) and according to one or more contextual preferences that identify types of inputs (see Kare, para. 27, 50, and 63, Kare discloses a database system 140 may be configured to store information on behalf of video conferencing application 132. This information may include, but is not limited to, meeting information, and/or user-preferences. Meeting information may include the date of a video conference, the time of a video conference, the invited participants for a video conference, any attachments contained in the email invitation, the message body of an email invitation for a video conference, and the like. User-preferences may include information about the user's role, prior feedback ratings for generated backgrounds, and the like. Furthermore, it discloses the feedback score may represent a relevance of the one or more generated backgrounds for the video conference. The feedback score may be used to retrain the machine learning mode).
Regarding claim 6, Kare-Gandhi and Olivieri discloses the method of claim 1, wherein asserting the virtual background image simultaneously against the first participant device and the second participant device (see claim 1) comprises: causing some or all participant devices connected to the video conference to produce a participant video stream using the virtual background image (para. 49, Kare discloses “In step 360, the computing device may cause a first background, of the one or more backgrounds, to be displayed during the video conference. Causing the first background to be displayed may include transmitting (sending) the one or more backgrounds to one or more user devices associated with the meeting attendees. In response to transmitting the one or more backgrounds, the computing device may receive a selection of the first background from a first user device.”).
Regarding claim 7, Kare-Gandhi and Olivieri discloses the method of claim 1, wherein asserting the virtual background image simultaneously against the first participant device and the second participant device (see rejection of claim 1) comprises: asserting the virtual background image a virtual background of some or all participants of the video conference independent of manual user action (para. 56, Kare discloses reciting “An example of an initial background is shown in FIG. 7A. The initial background may display a name of the meeting. As shown in FIG. 7A, the name of the meeting is “Quarterly Planning Meeting.” Additionally, or alternatively, the initial background may display agenda items to be discussed or being discussed. As shown in FIG. 7A, two agenda items may be displayed (e.g., “Introductions,” “Set Goals for Upcoming Quarter’). It will be appreciated that the two agenda items are merely illustrative and that more, or less, information may be displayed. For example, the entire agenda may be displayed in the initial background. As the agenda items are discussed, bullet points may be changed to check marks to illustrate that those agenda items have been discussed.”).
Regarding claim 8, Kare-Gandhi and Olivieri discloses the method of claim 1, comprising: obtaining, from a device associated with a host of the video conference, a selection of the virtual background image, wherein the asserting of the virtual background image for is based on the selection (see Kare, Abstract, paras. 0021, 0058).
Regarding claim 9, Kare-Gandhi and Olivieri discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the natural language input (see rejection of claim 1 above) corresponds to a text or speech prompt (see Kare, para. 0059).
Claim 11, list all the same elements of claim 1, but in non-transitory medium computer-readable form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 11. Furthermore, regarding the claim limitation of a at least one non-transitory medium computer-readable (paras. 0065 and 0081).
Regarding claim 12, Kare-Gandhi and Olivieri discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein the natural language (see rejection of claim 1 above) input corresponds to one or more key points related to the video conference and the virtual background image visually represents the one or more key points (para. 0046, Kare discloses As noted above, any attachments to the meeting may be analyzed. A computing device may open (e.g., download) one or more attachments to a meeting. The one or more attachments may be analyzed using natural language processing. Like the analysis of the header field 420, the text of the one or more attachments may be analyzed to disregard nonce words and/or identify keywords and/or dates. Additionally, or alternatively, the text of the one or more attachments may be analyzed to identify special formatting, such as bullet points. The keywords, dates, and/or special formatting may be used to generate one or more-word embeddings. Similarly, the one or more attachments may be analyzed using image analysis techniques. The image analysis techniques may identify images and/or graphics contained in the attachments. The images and/or graphics may include charts, graphs, and the like. The images and/or graphics may be used by the machine learning model to generate the background for the video conference. For example, the images and/or graphics may be inputted into the machine learning model. The machine learning model may incorporate one or more of the images and/or graphics in the one or more generated backgrounds.).
Regarding claim 15, Kare-Gandhi and Olivieri discloses a system, comprising: a memory subsystem (Fig. 2, 215); and processing circuitry (Fig. 2, 203) configured to execute instructions stored in the memory subsystem to: obtain, by generative artificial intelligence software, input associated with a video conference (see rejection of claim 1); generate, by the generative artificial intelligence software, a virtual background image based on the input(see rejection of claim 1); and output the virtual background image for use within multiple participant video streams during the video conference (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, Kare-Gandhi and Olivieri discloses the system of claim 15, wherein, to output the virtual background image for use within the multiple participant video streams during the video conference, the processing circuitry is configured to: transmit the virtual background image to devices running client applications used to connect to the video conference to configure each of the client applications to use the virtual background image within a participant video stream of the multiple participant video streams (para. 49, Kare discloses “In step 360, the computing device may cause a first background, of the one or more backgrounds, to be displayed during the video conference. Causing the first background to be displayed may include transmitting (sending) the one or more backgrounds to one or more user devices associated with the meeting attendees. In response to transmitting the one or more backgrounds, the computing device may receive a selection of the first background from a first user device.”).
Regarding claim 18, Kare-Gandhi and Olivieri discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the input is based on a conversational context of the video conference (para. 0059).
Regarding claim 19, Kare-Gandhi and Olivieri discloses the system of claim 15, wherein selection of the virtual background image for use with the multiple participant video streams is limited to a host of the video conference (para. 0019).
Regarding claim 20, Kare-Gandhi and Olivieri discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the multiple participant video streams correspond to one or both of video streams of non-presenting participants of the video conference or video streams of presenting participants of the video conference (para. 0019, 0060 and 0087, Kare discloses A computer-implemented method comprising: generating, by a computing device and using a machine learning model, one or more first backgrounds for a video conference based on one or more criteria contained in a meeting; causing, by the computing device, display of a first background of the one or more first backgrounds during the video conference; receiving, by the computing device and during the video conference, one or more streams of data from one or more client devices attending the video conference; analyzing, by the computing device, the one or more streams of data to identify one or more topics being discussed during the video conference;)
Smith
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kare-Gandhi and Olivieri in view of Smith, US PGPUB 20220353465.
Regarding claim 3, Kare-Gandhi and Olivieri discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Kare-Gandhi and Olivieri discloses a method of claim 1, wherein generating the virtual background image on the language input (see rejection of claim 1 above) comprises: However, Kare-Gandhi and Olivieri fails to explicitly discloses the details of determining one or more sounds generated by the generative artificial intelligence software and output to participants of the video conference; and generating the virtual background image based on the natural language input and the one or more sounds.
But in the same field of endeavor, Smith discloses determining one or more sounds generated by the generative artificial intelligence software and output to participants of the video conference; and generating the virtual background image based on the natural language (see rejection of claim 1 above) input and the one or more sounds. (paras.0059 and 0060).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have implemented Smith’s unified communication service platform with the system of Kare-Gandhi and Olivieri, for the purpose of providing a more efficient way of communicating with participating within a virtual environment based upon a specific topic of interest.
Regarding claim 17, Kare-Gandhi, Olivieri and Smith discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the virtual background image is further generated based on one or more sounds, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute the instructions to: generate, by the generative artificial intelligence software, the one or more sounds (see rejection of claim 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kare-Gandhi and Olivieri in view of Roper, US PGPUB 20230126108.
Regarding claim 4, Kare-Gandhi and Olivieri discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Kare-Gandhi and Olivieri does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first participant device and the second participant device are connected to a breakout room of the video conference and asserting the virtual background image simultaneously against the first participant device and the second participant device comprises: asserting the virtual background image against all participant device connected to the video conference breakout room.
But in the same field of endeavor, Roper discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first participant device and the second participant device are connected to a breakout room of the video conference and asserting the virtual background image simultaneously against the first participant device and the second participant device comprises: asserting the virtual background image against all participant device connected to the video conference breakout room (see Roper, paras. 0019-20, 0031, 0074, and 0096, Roper discloses Video conference provider 110 allows clients to create videoconference meetings (or “meetings”) and invite others to participate in those meetings as well as perform other related functionality, such as recording the meetings, generating transcripts from meeting audio, manage user functionality in the meetings, enable text messaging during the meetings, create and manage breakout rooms from the main meeting, etc. FIG. 2, described below, provides a more detailed description of the architecture and functionality of the video conference provider 110.and the computing device 600 includes a video conferencing application 660 to enable a user to join and participate in a video conference, such as a conventional meeting or webinar, by receiving multimedia streams from a video conference provider, sending multimedia streams to the video conference provider, joining and leaving breakout rooms, selecting virtual backgrounds, etc. such as described throughout this disclosure, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Kare-Gandhi and Olivieri by adding the teachings of Roper as described above, in order to allow clients within a video conferencing environment created virtual rooms and meetings that include breakout rooms (see Roper, para.0019 and 0020). The same motivation that was utilized in claim 4 applies equally as well to claims 13 and 14.
Regarding claim 13, Kare-Gandhi, Olivieri and Roper discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein the natural language input (see rejection of claim 1 above) is obtained while the first participant device and the second participant device are connected to a breakout room of the video conference (see Roper, paras. 0019-20, 0031, 0074, and 0096).
Regarding claim 14, Kare-Gandhi, Olivieri and Roper discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein the video conference is a webinar (see Roper, paras. 0054 and 0096, Roper discloses depending on the functionality provided by the video conference provider, the network services server(s) 214 may provide additional functionality, such as by providing private meeting capabilities for organizations, special types of meetings (e.g., webinars), etc. Such functionality may be provided according to various examples of video conferencing providers).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kare-Gandhi and Olivieri in view of Villavicencio et al. (Villavicencio), US PG PUB 20250211704.
Regarding claim 10, Kare-Gandhi and Olivieri discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Kare-Gandhi and Olivieri does not explicitly disclose a method of claim 1, wherein the video conference is implemented by a unified communications as a service software platform.
But in the same field of endeavor, Villavicencio discloses wherein the video conference is implemented by a unified communications as a service software platform (see abstract, para. 0038, Villavicencio discloses a system and method for optimal placement of overlay in a video conferences. In modern implementations, a remote meeting may employ several different technologies, including Unified Communication (UC) applications and services (e.g., ZOOM, TEAMS, SKYPE, FACETIME, etc.), robust (and/or lightweight) protocols, data encryption and compression techniques, etc., to enable the exchange of streams of text messages, voice, video, and/or other electronic data (e.g., files, documents, etc.) in real-time among remote users in dispersed locations.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement Villavicencio video conference by a unified communications as a service platform, such as ZOOM, TEAMS, SKPE, FACETIM, etc., with the device of Kare-Gandhi and Olivieri. The motivation would have been to enable the exchange of streams of text messages, voice, video and/or other electronic data, and to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predicable result.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C VAUGHN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3922. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Colleen Fauz can be reached at 571-272-1667. 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.
/WILLIAM C VAUGHN JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights