DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Office Action is responsive to amendments filed for application 18/641,047 filed on 04/07/2026.
Please note claims 1-3, 6-16, and 18-20 remain in the application.
In response to the amendments filed to claims 2, 10-12, 14 and 16, the previous rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 18-20 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.
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.
Claims 3 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a type of the device connected to the assisting device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes “a type of the device” will be read as “a type of a device.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 12-13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (hereinafter Lee), US-PG-PUB No. 2016/0212522 in view Kim et al (hereinafter Kim), US-PG-PUB No. 2019/0124193.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a method, applied to a first device (Shown in Fig. 1B, a main body (110) of an ear set (100)), wherein
the first device is configured to provide an audio for playing (Audio data is transmitted (provided) from the main body.....¶[0030], lines 4-6), and the method comprises: obtaining first data (Shown in Fig. 17, S1700, a state of a passenger is detected, thus obtaining data related to the state) based on that a first trigger condition is met (S1700 follows S1306 (a trigger condition)), wherein
the first trigger condition comprises: a first instruction for playing the audio being received (Shown in Fig. 13, S1306 is an instruction to output an audio signal related to an event), and wherein
the first data comprises data obtained by at least one assisting device (The data is obtained from an assisting control device of a vehicle.....¶[0251], lines 4-7) capable of communicating with the first device (Implied via the disclosed transfer of data), wherein
the first data indicates a status of a user (S1700 detects the state (status) of passengers (users)), and
the status of the user indicates whether the user is in a sleep state (S1702, ¶[0252], lines 1-4); and
determining, based on the first data (A YES/NO determination is made at S1702 based on first data obtained in S1700), that an audio playing manner of the first device is a first manner in a plurality of manners (One of the plurality of manners of playback S1706 and S1708 is selected, dependent on sleep state of the user determined in S1702), wherein the plurality of manners comprises: playing the audio by using an external loudspeaker (S1708), or playing the audio by using a second device (S1706), wherein when the status of the user indicates the user is in the sleep state, the first manner is playing the audio by using the second device (First manner S1706 is predicated on the passenger being asleep in S1702), and the second device is a wireless headset (Per S1706, the second device is wireless earphones (a type of wireless headset)).
Lee fails to disclose wherein the plurality of manners include playing from the first device, instead using an external loudspeaker, and wherein the plurality of manners includes stopping playback. The examiner notes that these undisclosed playback manners are common features of mobile phones, analogous to the first device of Lee.
Kim teaches a primary device (Embodied as a mobile phone, analogous to the first device of Lee) capable of a plurality of playback manners including playing audio by using a loudspeaker of the primary device (¶[0050], lines 7-11), playing the audio by using a second device (An earbud, analogous to the wireless headset of Lee.....¶[0220], lines 34-38), and stopping playing the audio (When a wireless speaker disconnects, the user may set a preference to not continue listening to audio playback, stopping playing the audio.....¶[0220], lines 19-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee by Kim to provide the benefits of wherein the first device may provide speakerphone functionality (Lee, ¶[0226], lines 13-15) as well as enabling user preference as to where they listen to audio content e.g.: only in a vehicle.....Kim, ¶[0220], lines 20-23). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein an external loudspeaker may be made integral to the first device of Lee, and wherein the plurality of audio playing manners comprise: playing the audio by using a loudspeaker of the first device, playing the audio by using a second device, and stopping playing the audio.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lee and Kim teaches the method according to claim 1.
Lee additionally teaches wherein the second device is connected to the assisting device (The headset is connected to the vehicle through the first device).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lee and Kim teaches the method according to claim 1.
Lee additionally teaches wherein the first data indicates a status of a device connected to the assisting device (A wearable device connected to the vehicle control device may output biometric information, indicating a status of the wearable device’s sensors.....¶[0248], lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lee and Kim teaches the method according to claim 1.
Lee additionally teaches wherein the first data indicates a location of the first device (The first data received from the vehicle may include location of the vehicle (and therefore the first device within the vehicle) relative to local emergencies.....¶[0235], lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lee and Kim teaches the method according to claim 6.
Lee additionally teaches wherein based on that the second device is the wireless headset (Shown in Fig. 7, S700, the wireless headset is used in a hearing aid mode), and that the location of the first device belongs to preset outdoor space (S702 determines if the first device within a preset distance considered inside the vehicle, or outside of the preset distance considered outside the vehicle.....¶[0135]), the first manner is playing the audio by using the second device (In S708 the output is still through the second device, in a specialized mode).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lee and Kim teaches the method according to claim 1.
Lee additionally teaches wherein the obtaining the first data comprises: receiving third data (biometric data.....¶[0249], lines 1-4) from a fourth device (wearable device of a passenger.....¶[0249], lines 1-4) that is one of the at least one assisting device (the wearable device assists the first device in making the determination); and receiving fourth data (an internal image of the vehicle.....¶[0249], lines 1-4) from a fifth device (an internal camera of the vehicle.....¶[0202], lines 1-3) that is one of the at least one assisting device (The vehicle control unit provides the image data, assisting the first device), wherein the first data comprises the third data and the fourth data (Both data are used…..¶[0249], lines 1-4), a type of the fourth device and a type of the fifth device are different (A wearable biometric monitor vs a camera), and a data type of the third data and a data type of the fourth data are different (Biometric data vs image data).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lee and Kim teaches the method according to claim 1.
Lee additionally teaches wherein the determining, based on the first data, that the audio playing manner of the first device is the first manner in the plurality of manners comprises: determining, according to a first preset rule, that the audio playing manner of the first device is the first manner in the plurality of manners based on that the first data meets a first condition (Fig. 17, S1702 constitutes a preset rule based on whether or not first data indicates a passenger is sleeping), wherein the first preset rule indicates a correspondence between a condition that the first data meets and the audio playing manner of the first device (The playing manner is corresponds to the determination/rule at S1702).
Regarding claim 19, the method limitations are the same as that of claim 1, and are similarly taught by the combination of Lee and Kim.
Regarding the additional hardware limitations, Lee additionally teaches an electronic device (Shown in Fig. 1, the main body (110) of an earset device) comprising: one or more processors (control unit (111).....¶[0046], lines 4-5); and a non-transitory computer readable medium (memory (114).....¶[0042], lines 1-2) which contains computer-executable instructions (¶[0041], lines 3-6); the one or more processors are configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to enable the electronic device to perform the method of claim 1 (¶[0046], lines 1-5).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kim in further view of Dvortsov et al (hereinafter Dvortsov), US-PG-PUB No. 2017/0003931 (previously cited) and Mathur, US Patent No. 10,514,884 (previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lee and Kim teaches the method according to claim 1, but fail to teach the first instruction being received; when the first trigger condition is met, the first device is not connected to the second device, and a device most recently connected to the second device is different from the first device; the first data indicates a status of the second device, the status of the second device is a connectable state, and the first manner is playing the audio by using the second device; and after the determining that the audio playing manner of the first device is the first manner in the plurality of manners, the method further comprises: establishing a connection to the second device; and playing the audio by using the second device.
Dvortsov teaches a method of communication between devices for determining a playback manner wherein the first trigger condition comprises: the first instruction being received (The trigger is an audio play request (instruction).....¶[0089], lines 8-11); when the first trigger condition is met, the first device is not connected to the second device (Potentially available devices are detected prior to establishing a playback connection, with the information provided by a third device connected to the second device (and not the first device).....¶[0029], lines 1-2); the first data indicates a status of the second device (Explained previously, the first data includes properties obtained by a second (assisting) device.....¶[0089], lines 1-3), the status of the second device is a connectable state (Speaker selection may be based on speaker (second device) availability (a connectable state).....¶[0085], lines 5-7), and the first manner is playing the audio by using the second device (The result of the determination may result in a second device being used to play the audio (a first audio playing manner).....¶[0090], lines 1-2, ¶[0091], lines 6-10); and after the determining that the audio playing manner of the first device is the first manner in the plurality of manners, the method further comprises: establishing a connection to the second device (Play information is sent from the first device to the second, requiring an established connection.....¶[0091], lines 7-10); and playing the audio by using the second device (Playback may be conducted by a second device…..¶[0091], lines 6-10).
Mathur teaches an audio switching system wherein a first audio source device (Newly detected audio source, analogous to the first device of Dvortsov…..Col. 6, lines 35-36) may connect to a second device (A wireless headphone…..Col. 6, lines 35-38) when a device most recently connected to the wireless headphone is different from the first device (A previous (different) audio source device was connected prior to the first device connecting…..Col. 6, lines 12-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee and Kim by Dvortsov and Mathur to provide the benefits of smooth transition between devices (Dvortsov, ¶[0099], lines 1-2) and a system wherein a user need not utilize redundant second devices to pair with multiple first devices (Mathur, Col. 1, lines 36-39). Such modification would make obvious the features wherein the first instruction being received; when the first trigger condition is met, the first device is not connected to the second device, and a device most recently connected to the second device is different from the first device; the first data indicates a status of the second device, the status of the second device is a connectable state, and the first manner is playing the audio by using the second device; and after the determining that the audio playing manner of the first device is the first manner in the plurality of manners, the method further comprises: establishing a connection to the second device; and playing the audio by using the second device.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kim in further view of Dvortsov and Clayton et al (hereinafter Clayton), US-PG-PUB No. 2019/0306607 (previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lee and Kim teaches the method according to claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the first trigger condition a playback device disconnection; the first data indicates a type and status of the second device, the type of the second device is the same as a type of the device configured to play the audio, the status of the second device is a connectable state, and the first manner is playing the audio by using the second device; and after the determining that the audio playing manner of the first device is the first manner in the plurality of manners, establishing a connection to and playing audio by the second device.
Dvortsov teaches a method of communication between devices for determining a playback manner wherein the first trigger condition comprises: detected performance degradation of an output device (¶[0100], lines 1-5); wherein the first data indicates a type of the second device (Properties (first data) may include whether a device is AC or battery powered (device types).....¶[0019], lines 5-7) and a status of the second device (Properties may include network connection strength (a status).....¶[0019], lines 5-7), the type of the second device is the same as the type of the second device is the same as a type of the device configured to play the audio (When the first device detects performance degradation of a connected output device, it will search for a new device according to the hierarchal rule structure in place, prioritizing devices of a same type to the disconnected device.....¶[0100], lines 3-5, ¶[0086], lines 3-9), the status of the second device is a connectable state (Manner determination may be based on speaker (second device) availability (a connectable state).....¶[0085], lines 5-7), and the first manner is playing the audio by using the second device (The method is directed towards selecting a second device to play audio…..¶[0090], lines 1-2, ¶[0091], lines 6-10); and after the determining that the audio playing manner of the first device is the first manner in the plurality of manners, the method further comprises: establishing a connection to the second device; and playing the audio by using the second device.
Clayton teaches a method of selecting an external device for audio playback wherein the first trigger condition comprises: the connection to a device configured to play the audio being disconnected (The disconnection of headphones (an audio output device) triggers selection of a second device for audio output.....¶[0102], lines 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Lee and Kim by Dvortsov and Clayton to provide the benefits of smooth transition between devices (Dvortsov, ¶[0099], lines 1-2) and a system which avoids disturbance caused by changing the output device without warning (Clayton, ¶[0024], lines 5-9). Such modification would make obvious the features wherein the first trigger condition comprises: the connection to the device configured to play the audio being disconnected; the first data indicates a type of the second device and a status of the second device, the type of the second device is the same as a type of the device configured to play the audio, the status of the second device is a connectable state, and the first manner is playing the audio by using the second device; and after the determining that the audio playing manner of the first device is the first manner in the plurality of manners, the method further comprises: establishing a connection to the second device; and playing the audio by using the second device.
Claims 10-11, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kim in further view of Dvortsov.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lee and Kim teaches the method according to claim 1.
Lee additionally discloses wherein the obtaining the first data comprises: receiving second data from the third device, wherein the first data comprises the second data, and wherein the third device is the at least one assisting device (As explained in the rejection of claim 1, the first device receives second data (comprising at least the first data) from the third device (vehicle control unit, which is the assisting device).
This further combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the obtaining of first data is based on the first device sending a request message to a third device .
Dvortsov teaches a method of communication between devices for determining a playback manner, wherein obtaining a first data comprises: sending a request message (In order to obtain data, a first device requests properties regarding a second device.....¶[0034], lines 7-9) to a third device (Properties (data) may be obtained over wi-fi networks instead of Bluetooth, requiring requests interface through a third device (e.g. a router).....¶[0029], lines 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Lee and Kim by Dvortsov to provide the benefit of a smooth transition between playback devices (Dvortsov, ¶[0099], lines 1-2). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the obtaining of first data is based on the first device sending a request message to a third device.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lee, Kim, and Dvortsov teaches the method according to claim 10.
Dvortsov additionally teaches wherein, before the obtaining the first data, the method further comprises: determining, by the first device and the third device, the data type of the second data through negotiation (The list of properties (data type) contained within the second data may be determined based on a request (negotiation) from the first device to the third device.....¶[0089], lines 4-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Lee, Kim, and Dvortsov further by Dvortsov to provide the benefit of benefit of a smooth transition between playback devices (Dvortsov, ¶[0099], lines 1-2). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein, before the obtaining the first data, the method further comprises: determining, by the first device and the third device, the data type of the second data through negotiation.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lee and Kim teaches the method according to claim 1, but fail to explicitly teach wherein the assisting device logs in to a same account as the first device.
Dvortsov teaches a method of communication between devices for determining a playback manner, wherein an assisting device logs in to a same account as a first device (Each device in the method may utilize (log in) to a cloud audio-access system, with authorization provided by a user identifier (login account data).....¶[0028], lines 1-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Lee and Kim by Dvortsov to provide the benefit of access to user’s music collections (Dvortsov, ¶[0028], lines 1-3). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the assisting device logs in to a same account as the first device.
Regarding claim 18, the majority of the method steps and limitations are the same as those recited in claim 1, and are similarly taught by the combination of Lee and Kim as explained in the rejection of claim 1.
This combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the assisting device receives a request message from a first device based on that a first trigger condition is met, instead only broadly teaching wherein the first device uses the data from the assisting device based on the first trigger condition being met. It is not explicitly stated if this data is provided via request from the device upon detection of the event, or if it is received constantly/passively, with both communication methods being common to the state of the art.
Dvortsov teaches a method wherein a first device selects a method of playing audio, wherein an assisting device receives a request message from a first device (A first device may request information from the assisting device.....¶[0089], lines 6-7) based on that a first trigger condition is met (The data is requested in response to an input event (trigger condition).....¶[0089], lines 8-11)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Lee and Kim by Dvortsov to provide the benefit of a smooth transition between playback devices (Dvortsov, ¶[0099], lines 1-2). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the method comprises: receiving a request message from a first device based on that a first trigger condition is met.
Regarding claim 20, the method limitations are the same as that of claim 1, and are similarly taught by the combination of Lee, Kim, and Dvortsov.
Regarding the additional hardware limitations, Lee additionally teaches an electronic device (A vehicle.....¶[0205], line 1) comprising: one or more processors (Vehicle control unit, which, based on circumstantial evidence of the prior art, is clearly directed towards processing inputs and providing outputs.....¶[0203], ¶[0046], lines 4-5); and a non-transitory computer readable medium which contains computer-executable instructions; the one or more processors are configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to enable the electronic device to perform the method of claim 1 (The vehicle is an electronic device, capable of receiving input and providing output according to predetermined instructions. As such, and based on the circumstantial evidence of the prior art (chiefly, the relationship between control units, memory, and executable instructions disclosed regarding the first device control unit…..¶[0042], lines 1-2, ¶[0041], lines 3-6, ¶[0046], lines 1-5), it is clearly guided towards containing its own memory capable of providing computer-executable instructions to perform the methods disclosed).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kim in further view of Balaraman et al (hereinafter Balaraman), US-PG-PUB No. 2022/0342629.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lee and Kim teaches the method according to claim 13, but fails to teach determining playback manner selection rules based on user interactions occurring prior to the method steps of claim 1.
Balaraman teaches a method of selecting a playback manner wherein before obtaining first data based on that a first trigger condition is met (Playback manner selection is based on historical data and associated parameters, therefore associations may be built before a first trigger condition.....¶[0010], lines 1-9) , the method further comprises:
when a first user plays the audio by using the first device (Method 200 of Fig. 2 may be initiated by a user requesting audio…..¶[0021], lines 5-7), obtaining fifth data (Location and other parameters (fifth data) is obtained in step (202)) and a second manner of playing the audio by the first device (If certainty is above a threshold as (204) a default audio device will be set, potentially using speakers (a second manner of playing).....¶[0016], lines 6-10), wherein the fifth data comprises data obtained by the at least one assisting device (The parameters are obtained by network access points (assisting devices).....¶[0022], lines 1-8) when the audio is played by the first device in the second manner (Decisions are based on historical data, including both rule-based determinations of playback devices/manners and user selection of playback devices/manners, including the second manner.....¶[0018], lines 18-25); and determining, based on the fifth data and the second manner, the first preset rule corresponding to the first user (When the user selects the second manner a threshold number of times in association with a location (fifth data), the method is able to predict the association between the two, determining a rule.....¶[0027], lines 1-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee and Kim by Balaraman to provide the benefit of a computing device that may select a default peripheral based on user preferences dependent on networks (Balaraman, ¶[0009], lines 8-9). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) of determining playback manner selection rules based on user interactions occurring prior to the method steps of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Lee and Kim teaches the method according to claim 13, but fail to teach determining playback manner selection rules based on a user changing the device output.
Balaraman teaches a method of selecting a playback manner wherein after the determining that the audio playing manner of the first device is the first manner in the plurality of manners (Shown in Fig. 2, a first manner (default audio device) is determined at 210), the method further comprises: performing the first manner (212); receiving a second user operation for switching the audio playing manner of the first device (214); in response to the second user operation, switching the audio playing manner of the first device from the first manner to a third manner (216); and updating the first preset rule based on the first data and the third manner (The user selection at (214) is stored as historical data (218) which is used to update the audio device predictions (preset rules) based on the historical data.....¶[0010], lines 15-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee and Kim by Balaraman to provide the benefit of a computing device that may select a default peripheral based on user preferences dependent on networks (Balaraman, ¶[0009], lines 8-9). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) of determining playback manner selection rules based on a user changing the device output.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2013/0021535 and Anders et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2019/0349683 both teach methods for an audio player to select different playback devices so as to prevent disturbing sleeping individuals.
Lefevre et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2018/0129514 teaches a method for an audio playback system to adapt a playback manner when a sleeping individual is detected.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 SEAN RINEHART whose telephone number is (571)272-2778. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 6:00 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, Fan Tsang can be reached on (571) 272-7547. 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.
/SEAN RINEHART/Examiner, Art Unit 2694
/FAN S TSANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights