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
An Amendment with associated Remarks was received 05/12/2026 with pending claims 1-12, 21 with amendments to claims 1-12 and new claim 21. Claims 13-20 were cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg 9, filed 05/12/2026, with respect to the objections of claims 1-4, 6, 13, 16, 19-20 for minor informalities has been fully considered and, in light of the associated amendment, is persuasive. Therefore, the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg 9, filed 05/12/2026, with respect to the objections of claims 1 for duplicate claims has been fully considered and, in light of the claim cancellation, is moot. Therefore, the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 7 for interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) has been reviewed and, in light of the claim amendment, is persuasive to withdraw the interpretation. Examiner notes the amendment has changed the scope and interpretation of the claim and claims that dependent upon it. Therefore, the previous allowability based on such interpretation is also withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg 9, filed 05/12/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1-6, 13-20 under 35 USC § 101 has been fully considered, but is not persuasive.
The applicant argues claims 1-6 were amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection. However, the applicant does not provide substantive discussion as to how the amendments comply with statutory subject matter under the Alice/Mayo framework (see MPEP § 2106). Rather, the applicant argues the claims were amended “to recite something more than merely ‘calculating’” per the examiner interview on May 11, 2026 (Remarks – 05/12/2026, pg 9). During the interview, the examiner and Applicant’s representative discussed the ”something more” to incorporate details in the claims that would render the claim eligible subject matter, such as components of the system that would overcome a mere abstract idea or details in how the limitations are more than mere calculations. The examiner suggested specific examples provided to the public in the subject matter eligibility to review when presenting arguments as to how the claims are statutorily eligible under the Alice/Mayo framework (see Examiner Interview Summary Record 05/14/2026). Examiner notes the claims may be interpreted as a mental process or a mathematical concept based on the current amendments. The claims were not amended to be interpreted with BRI such that the claims were not subject to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the applicant has not argued why the claims should be eligible. Furthermore, claim 7-12 were amended to change the scope to avoid an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and in such amendment opened the door to interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 101, rather than under an integration of a judicial exception (see also Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Respectfully, the applicant is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg 9-11, filed 05/12/2026, with respect to the rejections of claim 1-6, under 35 USC § 103 has been fully considered, but is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art Ozawa (US 2017/0353753) “fails to teach or suggest either "required quality" or "analysis performance," as recited in claim 1” (Remarks – 05/12/2026, pg 10). The argument does not provide substance regarding why the claimed limitations by applicant are distinguishable from the prior art.
The “required quality” claim limitation is recited as “indicating quality of the video image required by a video image distribution apparatus configured to distribute the video image” and the prior art Ozawa states “ the client apparatus 400 selects a segment having a proper bit rate or a resolution depending on a status of a network band, a CPU utilization rate, and a screen size of a monitor on which the video image is displayed” in cited paragraph [0034]. The claim limitation broadly states “a required quality indicating quality of the video image required by a video image distribution apparatus” and the prior art states multiple different types of quality data used to determine requirements for transmission/distribution (proper bit rate or resolution). Respectfully, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The “analysis performance” claim limitation is recited as “analyzing the video image based on the acquired required quality, the analysis performance enabling the target object to be recognized” and the prior art Ozawa states the “client apparatus 400 is a terminal apparatus operable by a viewer of a virtual viewpoint video image” (¶ [0033]) in which “the client apparatus 400 selects a segment having a proper bit rate or a resolution depending on a status of a network band, a CPU utilization rate, and a screen size of a monitor on which the video image is displayed” (¶ [0034]). The representation of the data is based on the quality as described based on, at least bit rate, resolution, as described by Ozawa (cited ¶ [0034], [0056]). Respectfully, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to amended independent claim 7 are identical to claim 1 arguments and are, respectfully, not persuasive for the reason provided above. As discussed above, the applicant amended claim 7 to avoid an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and in such amendment changed the scope of the claim, thereby moot for allowability based on the previous interpretation and subject to an interpretation parallel to claim 1 with both 35 U.S.C. § 101 and prior art rejections). Respectfully, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to amended claims 2-6, 8-12 are based on arguments pertaining to claim 1 and are, respectfully, not persuasive for the reason provided above.
All arguments were addressed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 8-11 are 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.
Claims 8, 10 recites “in the determining the analysis performance” and is dependent on claim 7 which recites “calculating an analysis performance.” It is noted claim 10 is dependent on claim 9 (dependent on claim 8, 7), with the root element not claimed with identical claim limitation language. Thus, Applicant has failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 9-11 are rejected as dependent on claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a network management apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (generic computer devices to gather and analyze data associated with abstract ideas using mathematical concepts; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)) to:
acquire, in order to recognize a target object from a video image, a required quality indicating quality of the video image required by a video image distribution apparatus configured to distribute the video image (considered insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity to identify statistical requirements; see MPEP § 2106.05(g));
determine an analysis performance for analyzing the video image based on the acquired required quality, the analysis performance enabling the target object to be recognized (mathematical concept to determine a set of features; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)); and
determine a parameter related to the distribution of the video image based on the determine analysis performance (mathematical concept to determine a set of features; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Claim 2 recites the network management apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: acquire a video image quality of the video image (considered insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity to identify statistical requirements; see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and determine the analysis performance based on the acquired required quality and the acquired video image quality (mathematical concept to determine a set of features; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Claim 3 recites the network management apparatus according to claim 2 (as described above), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: execute the instructions to acquire a required recognition rate indicating a recognition rate required for the video image and a required amount of delay indicating an upper limit of an amount of delay required for the video image as the required quality (mathematical concept to determine a set of features; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)), and acquire a frame rate of the video image as the video image quality (mathematical concept to determine a set of features; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)), wherein the recognition rate is a rate at which the target object is recognized in at least one video image frame among a plurality of video image frames (mathematical concept to determine a set of features; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Claim 4 recites the network management apparatus according to claim 3 (as described above), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
determine the number of frames in the required delay indicating the number of frames of the video image frame generated within the required amount of delay based on the acquired required amount of delay and the acquired frame rate (mathematical concept to determine a set of features; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I));
determine a first function indicating a relationship between a recall rate and the number of frames of the video image frame when the required recognition rate is the acquired required recognition rate (mathematical concept to determine a set of features; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)),
determine a required recall rate indicating a recall rate required for one video image frame as the analysis performance based on the determined number of frames in the required delay and the calculated first function (mathematical concept to determine a set of features; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)); and
determine a required video image bit rate indicating a video image bit rate required for the video image as the parameter based on the determined required recall rate calculated by the first calculation unit and a second function indicating a relationship between a recall rate and a video image bit rate (mathematical concept to determine a set of features; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Claim 5 recites the network management apparatus according to claim 4 (as described above), wherein the second function is determined by taking a variation in the recognition rate into account (mathematical concept to determine a set of features; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Claim 6 recites the network management apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: execute the instructions to acquire the required quality in accordance with the target object (mathematical concept to determine a set of features; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Claim 7 recites a network management method (method of applying mathematical concepts to determine features associated with video data; see MPEP § 2106) comprising: steps claimed in parallel to claim 1 (as described above).
Claim 8-12 recites the network management method of claim 7-10 (claim dependent), with further steps claimed in parallel to claims 2-6 (as described above).
Claim 21 recites the network management apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to control settings of the determined parameters in the video image distribution apparatus (considered insignificant post-solution activity based on the calculated parameters; see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite mathematical concepts as outlined above and described in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) with select limitations directed to extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.04(g). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) states:
It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of ‘‘managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results’’ as an abstract idea).
Therefore, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation based on mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, these claims each recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic computer components (memory, processor, and instructions including generic models for performing a general function of calculating quality metrics from image data, which is described with a high level of generality of automating a mathematical operation) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the aforementioned claims are directed to abstract ideas.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic placeholder-related computer components, the memory to store instructions executed on a processor to perform mathematical calculations to determine mathematical relationships amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an invention concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 12, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ozawa (US 2017/0353753).
Regarding Claim 1, Ozawa teach a network management apparatus (server 300 (computer (700) with communication interface 305 (705); Fig 1, 3, 8 and ¶ [0086]-[0087]) comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (program stored on memory 702; Fig 8 and ¶ [0086]), and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (CPU 701 executing program stored on memory 702; Fig 8 and ¶ [0086], [0091]) to:
acquire, in order to recognize a target object from a video image (video images of object 100 are captured by cameras 200A-D and the server 300 acquires the associated image data; Fig 1 and ¶ [0029], [0072]), a required quality indicating quality of the video image required by a video image distribution apparatus configured to distribute the video image (the client apparatus 400 may contain a restriction range of the allowable viewpoint range based on the feature information of a media presentation description (MPD; ¶ [0021)], so it will serve a viewing purpose; Fig 1, 3, 4, 5A and ¶ [0033]-[0035], [0052], [0076]-[0077]);
determine an analysis performance for analyzing the video image based on the acquired required quality, the analysis performance enabling the target object to be recognized (the client apparatus 400 analyzes the selected image segment transmitted MPD data from apparatus 300, including the proper bit rate or resolution, which allow for viewing of the object 100; Fig 1, 3, 4, 5A and ¶ [0033]-[0035], [0053]-[0056], [0077]); and
determine a parameter related to the distribution of the video image based on the determined analysis performance (the image segment representation data is used to calculate an adaptation rate data, representing different bit rates or resolutions of image segments based on the MPD (an additional parameter is the CPU utilization rate); Fig 1, 3, 4, 5A and ¶ [0034], [0055]-[0056], [0078]).
Regarding Claim 2, Ozawa teach the network management apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions (CPU 701 executing program stored on memory 702; Fig 8 and ¶ [0086], [0091]) to: acquire a video image quality of the video image (the video image segment quality data, such as resolution or bit rate, is acquired as feature information of the image capture information; ¶ [0031], [0051]); and determine the analysis performance based on the acquired required quality and the acquired video image quality (the bit rate or resolution is calculated from the MPD data to determine the segment having the proper bit rate or resolution; ¶ [0033]-[0034], [0053]).
Regarding Claim 6, Ozawa teach the network management apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: execute the instructions to acquire the required quality in accordance with the target object (the target object is the virtual viewpoint used as the analyzed MPD data; ¶ [0024], [0027]-[0028], [0033]-[0034]).
Regarding Claim 7, Ozawa teach a network management method (method associated with the DASH (Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over Http ¶ [0018]) with system 10 including server 300 (computer (700) with communication interface 305 (705) and client apparatus 400; Fig 1, 3, 8 and ¶ [0086]-[0087]) comprising: steps claimed in parallel to claim 1 (as described above).
Regarding Claim 8, Ozawa teach the network management method according to claim 7 (as described above), wherein further limitations are claimed in parallel to claim 2 (as discussed above).
Regarding Claim 12, Ozawa teach the network management method according to claim 7 (as described above), wherein further limitations are claimed in parallel to claim 6 (as discussed above).
Regarding Claim 21, Ozawa teach the network management apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to control settings of the determined parameters in the video image distribution apparatus (the distribution server may select the segment with a proper bit rate or the resolution based on the analyzed segments (switching the bit rate dependent on analysis and band to transmit ¶ [0019]-[0020]); ¶ [0033]-[0035]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 3-5, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa (US 2017/0353753) in view of Otsuka et al (JP 2021/057768, with foreign priority claimed by US 2022/0337851, and US ‘851 cited below as the translation).
Regarding Claim 3, Ozawa teach the network management apparatus according to claim 2 (as described above), including the at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (CPU 701 executing program stored on memory 702; Fig 8 and ¶ [0086], [0091]).
Ozawa does not teach to acquire a required recognition rate indicating a recognition rate required for the video image and a required amount of delay indicating an upper limit of an amount of delay required for the video image as the required quality, and acquires a frame rate of the video image as the video image quality, and the recognition rate is a rate at which the target object is recognized in at least one video image frame among a plurality of video image frames.
Otsuka et al is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in this application and teaches to acquire a required recognition rate indicating a recognition rate required for the video image and a required amount of delay indicating an upper limit of an amount of delay required for the video image as the required quality (a delay of frame rate is produced from compression coding of visual data to frame buffer for transfer and decompression to display (recognition rate) by display device; Fig 5-7 and ¶ [0097]-[0099]), and acquire a frame rate of the video image as the video image quality (the frame rate is based on a displayable state of the decoding-decompressing of the transferred image data; Fig 5-7 and ¶ [0100]), and
wherein the recognition rate is a rate at which the target object is recognized in at least one video image frame among a plurality of video image frames (the display of the image data is based on the synchronization of the vertical and horizontal signal within an allowable range of the display; Fig 5-7 and ¶ [0101]-[0102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Ozawa with Otsuka et al including to acquire a required recognition rate indicating a recognition rate required for the video image and a required amount of delay indicating an upper limit of an amount of delay required for the video image as the required quality, and acquires a frame rate of the video image as the video image quality, and the recognition rate is a rate at which the target object is recognized in at least one video image frame among a plurality of video image frames. By determining the recognition processing rate of transmitted image data, a delay in transmission may be calculated to determine coding size, thereby providing a means to adapt the transfer of data and improve the efficient in transfer and quality in the image data displayed, as recognized by Otsuka et al (¶ [0061], [0064]).
Regarding Claim 4, Ozawa in view of Otsuka et al teach the network management apparatus according to claim 3 (as described above), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions (Otsuka et al, server 400 contains processors (CPU 402, GPU 404, encoder 408 and control section 412 to monitor/control data; Fig 3, 5 and ¶ [0062]-[0066]) to;
determine the number of frames in the required delay indicating the number of frames of the video image frame generated within the required amount of delay based on the acquired required amount of delay and the acquired frame rate (Otsuka et al a decoding decompression procession can be determined, influencing the delay of data from compression to display based on the frame data size; Fig 7 and ¶ [0098]-[0100], [0133]);
determine a first function indicating a relationship between a recall rate and the number of frames of the video image frame when the required recognition rate is the acquired required recognition rate (Otsuka et al a history of formation times of a predetermined number of transmitted partial images with associated formation time can be determined; Fig 6, 7 and ¶ [0106], [0133]);
determine a required recall rate indicating a recall rate required for one video image frame as the analysis performance based on the calculated number of frames in the required delay and the determined first function (Otsuka et al, the data acquisition status specifying section 248 can acquire the formation time of corresponding partial image from formation time transmitted to determine if there is an increase in elapsed processing time; Fig 6, 7 and ¶ [0133]); and
determine a required video image bit rate indicating a video image bit rate required for the video image as the parameter based on the determined required recall rate and a second function indicating a relationship between a recall rate and a video image bit rate (Otsuka et al, the image compression size (bit rate ¶ [0478]-[0481]) can be determined for the given display formation, which may change based on the processing time and transmission time; Fig 6, 7 and ¶ [0134]-[0137]).
Regarding Claim 5, Ozawa in view of Otsuka et al teach the network management apparatus according to claim 4 (as described above), wherein the second function is determined by taking a variation in the recognition rate into account (Otsuka et al, the transfer of image data is influenced by the data size, with processing variation influencing the acquisition; Fig 7; ¶ [0103]-[0104]).
Regarding Claim 9, Ozawa teach the network management method according to claim 8 (as described above), wherein further limitations are claimed in parallel to claim 3 (as discussed above).
Regarding Claim 10, Ozawa in view of Otsuka et al teach the network management method according to claim 9 (as described above), wherein further limitations are claimed in parallel to claim 4 (as discussed above).
Regarding Claim 11, Ozawa in view of Otsuka et al teach the network management method according to claim 10 (as described above), wherein further limitations are claimed in parallel to claim 5 (as discussed above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Guo et al (US 2020/0288143, cited in Non-Final 02/12/2026) teach a video encoding method and system, including an encoding code rate control (bit allocation and bit control, applied to an IPPP format) and used to generate a compressed code stream of a first picture, where a motion estimation (influencing image distribution quality) is applied to determine the bit limits transferred.
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 KATHLEEN M BROUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHLEEN M BROUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights