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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1-10 are objected because of the following informalities:
In lines 3 and 5 of claim 1, the term “Voc FX” is recited. Voc FX is not a commonly used acronym and may only be understood within a specialized field. For example, “FX” can be used to mean foreign exchange. Applicant is advised to spell out “Voc FX” and use the more generic term “vocal effects”.
Dependent claims 2-10 inherit the same problem from claim 1 and they are objected for the same reason as well.
In line 2 of claim 2, the acronym “USB” is recited. The acronym’s full name, Universal Serial Bus, should be described, at least once, before the acronym can be used to avoid ambiguity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter, “the DSP provides pitch detection and correction algorithms in real-time.”, which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. To overcome this
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 1-4, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UltraLite (“UltraLite AVB User Guide”) in view of Evans et al. (US Patent No 10062367) in further view of Shutoh (US Patent No 6342666).
Regarding claim 1, UltraLite teaches an audio interface comprising a DSP (see pg.21, Section "On-board DSP with mixing and effects"); MIDI IN, MIDI OUT ports (see “MIDI IN”, “MIDI OUT”, pg.10, the only figure; pg.40, Section "MIDI CONNECTIONS"); MIDI HOST port ( a USB port connected to a host computer functions as a MIDI HOST port: see “The UltraLite AVB operates as a USB MIDI interface, allowing MIDI software to communicate with connected MIDI devices through the USB connection to the computer.”, pg.10, para.1; “USB2”, pg.10, the only figure); first and second microphone ports (two microphone ports are disclosed: see “Mic Inputs with individual preamps on XLR 2”, pg.21, Section "Comprehensive I/O"; “MIC 1”, “MIC 2”, the only figure on pg. 9 and pg.10 respectively); a plurality of OUTPUT ports connected to the DSP (eight outputs ports are connected to a DSP in the form of a routing matrix: see “..equipped with a powerful DSP engine that drives both an extensive routing matrix and…”, pg.21, Section "On-board DSP with mixing and effects"; “Matrix routing lets you quickly patch ins to outs”, pg.21, para.2, ln.5-6; ”ANALOG OUT”, “MAIN OUT”, pg.10, the only figure); first and second HOST ports, multi-host redundancy (a USB and an AVB Ethernet host port are disclosed to inherently offer multi-host redundancy: see "The UltraLite AVB can connect to a computer with high-speed USB 2.0... Alternately, the UltraLite AVB can be connected to the Ethernet port on a recent-generation Mac...through AVB Ethernet", pg.21, Section "Universal connectivity"; “USB2”, “AVB ETHERNET”, pg.10, the only figure); real-time signal processing (exemplified examples of real-time signal processing are disclosed: see “Powerful DSP delivers...32-bit floating point effects processing, including modeled analog EQ, vintage compression and classic reverb.”, pg.21, para.2, ln.1-5; “The mixer in the UltraLite AVB even provides zero latency effects processing”, pg.55, para.3, ln.7-8); MIDI control (Core MIDI, and Audio MIDI Setup with UltraLite interface are disclosed to manage and configure information for the compatible applications that work with MIDI to control MIDI devices: see “Core MIDI...handles MIDI services for MIDI hardware and software. Core MIDI provides many universal MIDI system management features, including MIDI communication between your UltraLite AVB interface and all Core MIDI compatible software”, pg.29, para.3; “Audio MIDI Setup...allows you to configure your UltraLite AVB interface for use with all Core MIDI compatible applications. Audio MIDI Setup provides: A simple, intuitive list of your MIDI devices whenever you need it in any Core MIDI compatible program”, pg.29, para.4, ln.1-5, Bullet 2).
UltraLite does not teach underlined elements wherein a CPU that includes a DSP, a MIDI processor, and two Voc FX (vocal effects) modules; MIDI IN, MIDI OUT, and MIDI HOST ports connected to the MIDI processor; first and second microphone ports connected to the first and second Voc FX modules.
Evans teaches a vocal effect processor connected to a microphone port (see part 112 and 108 in fig. 1); “a processor configured to execute digital signal processing (DSP) algorithms”, (see col.20, ln.35-36); “receiving vocal input via the microphone input; applying the vocal effects to the vocal input using the DSP algorithms”, (see col.20, ln.41-43)).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have integrated vocal effects processing as taught by Evans (col.2, ln.21-22) to the audio interface as taught by UltraLite to modify the natural sound of a voice and/or creating a different resulting sound as taught by Evans (col.1, ln.6-7). Official notice is taken that it is well-known in the art that one CPU can comprise multiple cores, which operate as independent processing units (i.e. independent processors), thereby allowing them to handle more different tasks simultaneously for better multitasking and performance. Thus, it would have been obvious that the DSP as taught by UltraLite and the vocal effect processor as taught by Evans could have been placed inside one CPU for the desirable purpose of handling more different simultaneously for better multitasking and overall system performance. The designer could also have chosen multiple microphone ports depending on the application. Applying such known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for cost, reliability, and/or power consumption.
UltraLite in view of Evans does not teach underlined elements wherein MIDI IN, MIDI OUT, and MIDI HOST ports connected to the MIDI processor, and first and second HOST ports connected to the DSP.
Shutoh teaches MIDI IN (see part 11 in fig.2) MIDI OUT (see part 12 in fig.2), and MIDI HOST ports (see part 13 and 14 in fig.2) connected to a MIDI processor (see part 22 in fig.2; “a processor connected to said MIDI input terminals, said MIDI output terminals, said first terminal, and said second terminal, the processor adapted to input and output data through said terminals.”, col.15, ln.16-19); first and second HOST ports connected to a CPU ( a USB port and a TO HOST port, see part 13 and 14 in fig.2 ; “new terminals such as USB terminal 13, TO HOST terminal 14 through which MIDI data can be sent and received according to different protocols”, Abstract, ln. 4-7).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it was well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that a DSP with a buffer can connect to multiple ports to which a host is connected as the CPU taught by Shutoh. It would have been obvious that the CPU that contains at least the DSP as taught by UltraLite, and the vocal effect processor as taught by Evans could have been further modified to contain an additional processor such as the MIDI processor as taught by Shutoh for the desirable purpose of handling more different tasks simultaneously for better multitasking and overall system performance. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a CPU that comprises the DSP as taught by UltraLite, vocal effects modules as taught by Evans, and the MIDI processor as taught by Shutoh, and arrived at the audio interface of claim 1. Choosing such a CPU with separate processors for DSP, vocal effects, and MIDI would have predictably yielded better multitasking performance and resulted in an improved audio interface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a selection to achieve more advanced functionality and to manage a larger number of parameters, as taught by Shutoh (col1., ln.36-37).
Regarding claim 2, UltraLite in view of Evans in further view of Shutoh teaches all the
claim elements previously stated in claim1’s 103 rejection.
UltraLite teaches a first host port that supports a USB connection and a second host port that supports a Thunderbolt connection (see “The connection to the computer can be either USB or Thunderbolt”, pg.32 Section “SETUP FOR TWO INTERFACES”, Bullet 1).
Regarding claim 3, UltraLite in view of Evans in further view of Shutoh teaches all the claim
elements previously stated in claim1’s 103 rejection.
UltraLite teaches a first host port that supports a USB connection and a second host port that supports an Ethernet connection (see “The UltraLite AVB can connect to a computer with high-speed USB 2.0…Alternately, the UltraLite AVB can be connected to the Ethernet port”, pg.21 Section “Universal Connectivity”, para.1, para.2).
Regarding claim 4, UltraLite in view of Evans in further view of Shutoh teaches all the claim
elements previously stated in claim1’s 103 rejection.
UltraLite teaches a first host port that supports a USB connection and a second host port that supports an Ethernet connection, which are non-compatible types of connection (see “The UltraLite AVB can connect to a computer with high-speed USB 2.0…Alternately, the UltraLite AVB can be connected to the Ethernet port”, pg.21 Section “Universal Connectivity”, para.1, para.2).
Regarding claim 6, UltraLite in view of Evans in further view of Shutoh teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim1’s 103 rejection.
UltraLite teaches a DSP providing real-time processing (see “The DSP-mixer provides the same near-zero latency throughput performance”, pg.59, Section “Advantage over host-based mixing and processing”, Bullet 1).
UltraLite does not teach wherein pitch detection and correction algorithms.
Evans teaches automatic pitch detection done by auto detecting the key in the vocals, and correction algorithms (see “a processor configured to execute … DSP algorithms”, col.2, ln. 14-15; “Auto-detection of the key may be performed…, which may facilitate automatic pitch correction…”, col.12, ln. 50-52).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have integrated pitch detection and correction algorithms as taught by Evans to the DSP providing real-time processing as taught by UltraLite. Pitch detection and correction algorithms would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved audio interface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a choice to allow for complex and dynamic effects changes over the course of a song as taught by Evans (col.4, ln.30-32).
Regarding claim 7, UltraLite in view of Evans in further view of Shutoh teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim1’s 103 rejection.
UltraLite teaches a user interface to customize parameters, e.g. MAIN OUT volume (see “Push the phone volume knob to control MAIN OUT volume”, pg.9, para.9; pg.9, the only figure).
UltraLite does not teach wherein correction parameters including pitch sensitivity, correction speed, and scale preferences.
Evans teaches effect category such as pitch correction (col.1, ln.25-27).
Evans in view of UltraLite does not teach wherein pitch sensitivity, correction speed, and scale preferences.
However, official notice is taken wherein, at the time of the invention was effectively filed, pitch sensitivity, correction speed, and scale preferences were well-known audio effects to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included them in correction parameters. Said correction parameters would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved audio interface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a choice to allow for complex and dynamic effects changes over the course of a song as taught by Evans (col.4, ln.30-32).
Regarding claim 8, UltraLite in view of Evans in further view of Shutoh teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim1’s 103 rejection.
UltraLite teaches a front panel with an LCD display user interface providing feedback (see “The LCD provides visual feedback as you turn the trim knob”, pg.39, para.5, ln.3-4; pg.9, the only figure) on system status (see “The LCD also provides several navigable menus that provide status information”, pg.49, ln.3-5) and signal levels (see “LCD displays level meters for all analog inputs and outputs” pg.9, para.7).
UltraLite is silent on real-time feedback. UltraLite also does not teach wherein pitch correction activity.
Evans teaches pitch correction (“There are numerous vocal and instrument effects available, and these generally fall under categories such as reverb, delay, pitch correction…”, col.1, ln.25-27).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it was well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that feedback on an LCD display can be real-time. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included pitch correction as taught by Evans (col.1, ln.25-27) as an additional parameter and added to the LCD display as taught by UltraLite (pg.49, chapter 6). Said pitch correction would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved audio interface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a choice to allow for information display to a user as taught by Evans (col.16, ln.3), and complex and dynamic effects changes over the course of a song as taught by Evans (col.4, ln.30-32).
Regarding claim 9, UltraLite in view of Evans in further view of Shutoh teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim1’s 103 rejection.
UltraLite teaches an interface to customize parameters, via MIDI. Parameters such as sample rates can be customized on host software via a USB MIDI interface (see “The UltraLite AVB operates as a USB MIDI interface, allowing MIDI software to communicate with connected MIDI devices through the USB connection”, pg.10, para.1; “you can connect it (UltraLite AVB) to your Mac with a USB cable… Basic settings, such as the hardware’s sample rate, are made in either your host software (Mac) or your system settings (Windows).”, pg.27. Section “USB 2.0 CLASS-COMPLIANT OPERATION”, para.1, ln.2-10).
UltraLite does not teach wherein correction parameters including pitch sensitivity, correction speed, and scale preferences.
Evans teaches effect category such as pitch correction (col.1, ln.25-27).
Evans in view of UltraLite does not teach wherein pitch sensitivity, correction speed, and scale preferences.
However, official notice is taken wherein, at the time of the invention was effectively filed, pitch sensitivity, correction speed, and scale preferences were well known audio effects to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included them in correction parameters. Said correction parameters would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved audio interface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include and customize pitch sensitivity, correction speed, and scale preferences to allow for complex and dynamic effects changes over the course of a song as taught by Evans (col.4, ln.30-32), via MIDI since no software driver installation is necessary as taught by UltraLite (pg.27. Section “USB 2.0 CLASS-COMPLIANT OPERATION”, para.2, ln.2-3)
Regarding claim 10, UltraLite in view of Evans in further view of Shutoh teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim1’s 103 rejection.
UltraLite teaches an interface to customize parameters, such as sample rates can be customized on host software via a USB MIDI interface (see “The UltraLite AVB operates as a USB MIDI interface, allowing MIDI software to communicate with connected MIDI devices through the USB connection”, pg.10, para.1; “you can connect it (UltraLite AVB) to your Mac with a USB cable… Basic settings, such as the hardware’s sample rate, are made in either your host software (Mac) or your system settings (Windows).”, pg.27. Section “USB 2.0 CLASS-COMPLIANT OPERATION”, para.1, ln.2-10).UltraLite also teaches a 5-pin DIN MIDI IN connection (pg.10, the only figure), a 5-pin DOUT MIDI OUT connection (pg.10, the only figure), and a USB MIDI HOST interface to provide MIDI functionality (see “The UltraLite AVB operates as a USB MIDI interface, allowing MIDI software to communicate with connected MIDI devices through the USB connection to the computer.”, pg.10, para.1; pg.10, the only figure).
UltraLite does not teach wherein correction parameters including pitch sensitivity, correction speed, and scale preferences.
Evans teaches effect category such as pitch correction (col.1, ln.25-27).
Evans in view of UltraLite does not teach wherein pitch sensitivity, correction speed, and scale preferences.
However, official notice is taken wherein, at the time of the invention was effectively filed, pitch sensitivity, correction speed, and scale preferences were well known audio effects to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included them in correction parameters. Said correction parameters would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved audio interface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include and customize pitch sensitivity, correction speed, and scale preferences to allow for complex and dynamic effects changes over the course of a song as taught by Evans (col.4, ln.30-32).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UltraLite (“UltraLite AVB User Guide”) in view of Evans et al. (US Patent No 10062367) in further view of Shutoh (US Patent No 6342666) in further view of PA1U (“iConnectivity PA1U User Guide”).
Regarding claim 5, UltraLite in view of Evans in further view of Shutoh teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim1’s 103 rejection.
UltraLite teaches the DSP provides switching from the HOST ports (see “…equipped with a powerful DSP engine that drives both an extensive routing matrix and…”, pg.21, Section "On-board DSP with mixing and effects"; “The UltraLite AVB provides completely flexible matrix-style audio routing and multing. You can route any analog or digital input, computer channel, or network stream to any other output, computer, or network device.”, pg.22, Section " Matrix routing and multing"). Official notice is taken that it is well-known in the art that routing is a superset of switching, and that “analog or digital input” and “computer channel” encompass HOST ports.
UltraLite in view of Evans and Shutoh does not teach underlined elements wherein automatic switching in case of failure or disconnection of the HOST ports.
PA1U teaches an audio interface capable of automatic switching in case of failure or disconnection (see “Automatic Failover uses a test tone… the PlayAUDIO1U instantly switches to your secondary device if any break in the test tone signal is detected, providing a seamless failover to your backup system without audio or MIDI interruption”, pg.11, para.3, ln.1-3).
PA1U in view of UltraLite, Evans, and Shutoh does not teach the underlined element wherein the DSP provides automatic switching in case of failure or disconnection of the HOST ports.
However, official notice is taken that it was a well-known routine a DSP can provide automatic switching if needed. Therefore, it would have been obvious automatic switching in case of failure or disconnection of the HOST ports could have been implemented on the DSP as taught by UltraLite (see “Powerful DSP delivers...”, pg.21, para.2, ln.1). Applying such known technique as taught by PA1U would have predictably improved system reliability by providing inherent redundancy to ensure uninterrupted operation, and resulted in a more reliable audio interface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to provide failover redundancy for all live performance scenarios as taught by PA1U (see “This failover...to ensure that your backup system can always be engaged instantly and seamlessly...for all live performance scenarios”, pg.11, para.2, ln.2-3).
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UltraLite (“UltraLite AVB User Guide”) in view of Evans et al. (US Patent No 10062367) in further view of PA1U (“iConnectivity PlayAUDIO1U User Guide”).
UltraLite teaches an audio interface system comprise two host ports adapted to provide connections to a plurality of hosts (see “The UltraLite AVB can connect to a computer with high-speed USB 2.0…Alternately, the UltraLite AVB can be connected to the Ethernet port”, pg.21, Section “Universal Connectivity”, para.1, para.2); real-time processing as underlined in two voice effects modules that provide real-time (“The mixer in the UltraLite AVB even provides zero latency effects processing”, pg.55, para.3, ln.7-8) vocal pitch correction for each of two microphone inputs (two microphone ports are disclosed: see “Mic Inputs with individual preamps on XLR 2”, pg.21, Section "Comprehensive I/O"; “MIC 1”, “MIC 2”, the only figure on pg. 9 and pg.10 respectively); a plurality of output connections (pg.10, the only figure, part 3); MIDI IN, MIDI OUT (see “MIDI IN”, “MIDI OUT”, pg.10, the only figure; pg.40, Section "MIDI CONNECTIONS"), and MIDI HOST connections to provide MIDI functionality (a USB port connected to a host computer functions as a MIDI HOST port to provide MIDI functionality: see “The UltraLite AVB operates as a USB MIDI interface, allowing MIDI software to communicate with connected MIDI devices through the USB connection to the computer.”, pg.10, para.1; “USB2”, pg.10, the only figure); a front panel that includes an LCD display (see “The LCD provides visual feedback as you turn the trim knob”, pg.39, para.5, ln.3-4; pg.9, the only figure) providing feedback on system status (see “The LCD also provides several navigable menus that provide status information”, pg.49, ln.3-5), and signal levels (see “LCD displays level meters for all analog inputs and outputs” pg.9, para.7).
UltraLite does not teach wherein a dedicated controller that monitors the connections to the hosts and switches between the hosts in case of failure or disconnection to ensure uninterrupted operation; underlined elements as in two voice effects modules that provide real-time vocal pitch correction for each of two microphone inputs; UltraLite also does not teach underlined elements wherein a front panel that includes an LCD display providing real-time feedback on system status, pitch correction activity, and signal levels.
Evans teaches a vocal effect processor connected to a microphone port (see part 112 and 108, pg.1, the only figure; “a processor configured to execute digital signal processing (DSP) algorithms...receiving vocal input via the microphone input; applying the vocal effects to the vocal input using the DSP algorithms...”, col.24, claim 6); effect category such as pitch correction (col.1, ln.25-27).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have integrated two, based on the need, vocal effects modules as taught by Evans to the audio interface as taught by UltraLite to make an improved audio interface system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a choice to modify the natural sound of a voice and/or creating a different resulting sound as taught by Evans (col.1, ln.6-7). It was also well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that feedback on an LCD display can be real-time. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included pitch correction as taught by Evans (col.1, ln.25-27) as an additional parameter and added to the LCD display as taught by UltraLite (pg.49, chapter 6). Said pitch correction would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved audio interface system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a choice to allow for information display to a user as taught by Evans (col.16, ln.3), and complex and dynamic effects changes over the course of a song as taught by Evans (col.4, ln.30-32).
Evans in view of UltraLite does not teach wherein a dedicated controller that monitors the connections to the hosts and switches between the hosts in case of failure or disconnection to ensure uninterrupted operation.
PA1U teaches an audio interface system capable of automatic switching in case of failure or disconnection (see “Automatic Failover uses a test tone… the PlayAUDIO1U instantly switches to your secondary device if any break in the test tone signal is detected, providing a seamless failover to your backup system without audio or MIDI interruption”, pg.11, para.3, ln.1-3).
PA1U is silent on underlined elements wherein a dedicated controller that monitors the connections to the hosts and switches between the hosts in case of failure or disconnection to ensure uninterrupted operation.
However, official notice is taken wherein, at the time of invention was effectively filed, it was a well-known routine that a controller was needed for automatic switching. it would have been the designer’s choice to implement automatic switching on connections to the host. Applying such known technique as taught by PA1U to UltraLite would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved audio interface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide failover redundancy for all live performance scenarios as taught by PA1U (see “This failover...to ensure that your backup system can always be engaged instantly and seamlessly...for all live performance scenarios”, pg.11, para.2, ln.2-3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8-5 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/SHIN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695