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
This action is in response to the amendment filed 06/12/2026. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments overcome the drawing objections regarding the graphics pipeline, the claim objections and the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 02/20/2026. Applicant’s amendments fail overcome the drawing objections regarding the subcubes as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 02/20/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4, filed 06/12/2026 regarding claimed subject matter not present in the drawings have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, from the combination of the figures and specification, that the claimed invention encompasses subcubes may vary in size, therefore the disclosure adequately conveys the subject matter of Claims 7-8 and 16-17.
Examiner replies see MPEP § 608.02, the drawings in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Subcubes of varying sizes and subcubes closer to the center of the cube are both featured in the Claims, see Claims 7-8 and 16-17. Because these features are present in the claims, they must be present in the drawings. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the Office Action’s reliance on Gottschalk for unlabeled-axis lattice selection process of Claims 9 and 8 fails to address Applicant’s actual unlabeled-axis lattice selection process. The application explains that, where the characteristic orientation is provided without labeled axis, multiple candidate labeling may be evaluated in the lattice, while reflections are eliminated.
Examiner replies see MPEP § 2111.01, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the language recited in Claims 9-18, “wherein the candidate orientation is provided without labeled axes” does not require the unlabeled-axis lattice selection process, where the characteristic orientation is provided without labeled axes and the candidate labeling may be evaluated in the lattice while reflections are eliminated. Gottschalk discloses a rotation matrix, interpreted as a candidate orientation, made up of unit vectors. Unit vectors do not have labeled axes and matrices do not have labeled axis. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-3, filed 06/12/2026 regarding graphics pipeline 134 not present in the application has been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection of Fig. 2 due to the graphics pipeline has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues graphics pipeline 134 is disclosed as functional logic or processing flow associated with compute units, not as a distinct structural component that can be illustrated, Figure 2 depicts the structural components sufficiently.
Examiner replies applicant’s argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-10, filed 06/12/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103, as it relates to the newly recited claim language, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the combination of Fenney and Nakashin. The rejection was necessitated by the amendment.
Applicant argues Fenney, Bartol, or Gottschalk, relied on for the rejection of former Claims 1, 10, and 19, do not disclose the now-recited limitation of selecting an index in a lookup table for the candidate orientation based on a characteristic coordinate for a subcube of a three-dimensional lattice that the Euclidean coordinates are in of the independent claims.
Examiner replies Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The references of Fenney, Bartol, and Gottschalk individually or in combination fail to disclose the newly recited claim language. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the combination of Fenney and Nakashin, as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Applicant argues the added references of Wiki Analog and Migge, relied on for the rejection of former Claims 2, 11, and 20, do not teach the lookup-table index selection of the independent claims. Neither reference teaches nor was cited for teaching selecting the LUT index based on a characteristic orientation for the identified subcube in Applicant’s three-dimensional lattice.
Examiner replies Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The references of Wiki Analog and Migge individually or in combination fail to disclose the newly recited claim language of the independent claims. A new ground of rejection is made in view of the combination of Fenney and Nakashin, as necessitated by the amendments to the independent claims.
Applicant argues the added references of X and Houdini, relied on for the rejection of former Claims 3 and 12, do not teach the process of selecting a lookup-table index for a candidate orientation based on a characteristic coordinate for a subcube for a three-dimensional lattice that contains Euclidean coordinates representative of a characteristic orientation.
Examiner replies Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The references of X and Houdini individually or in combination fail to disclose the newly recited claim language of the independent claims. A new ground of rejection is made in view of the combination of Fenney and Nakashin, as necessitated by the amendments to the independent claims.
Applicant argues the added reference of Eberly, relied on for the rejection of former Claims 4 and 13, together with the prior LUT references fail to teach the newly required upstream selection based on a characteristic coordinate for a subcube of a three-dimensional lattice.
Examiner replies Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Eberly fails to disclose the newly recited claim language of the independent claims. A new ground of rejection is made in view of the combination of Fenney and Nakashin, as necessitated by the amendments to the independent claims.
Applicant argues the cited art referenced in the rejection of Claims 4-8 and 13-17 do not disclose the features in the now-claimed integrated lookup-index-selection architecture.
Examiner replies Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The references cited in the rejection of Claims 4-8 and 13-17 individually or in combination fail to disclose the newly recited claim language of the independent claims. A new ground of rejection is made in view of the combination of Fenney and Nakashin, as necessitated by the amendments to the independent claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the method of Claim 4, wherein the subcubes differ in size and the method of Claim 7, wherein the subcubes closer to a middle of a cube for the lattice are smaller than subcubes on an outside of the cube must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fenney (US 2022/0020201 A1), hereinafter referenced as Fenney, in view of Nakashin (US 2011/0221761 A1), hereinafter referenced as Nakashin.
Regarding Claim 1, Fenney discloses a method (Fenney: [0009], describes a computer-implemented method) comprising:
determining a characteristic orientation for a node based on an underlying geometry of triangles of the node (Fenney: [0002, 0082-0089], discloses determining an instance transformation <characteristic orientation> to be applied to an axis aligned bounding box, AABB, to create an oriented bounding box, OBB <where the transformation is a rotation>, this instance transformation is based on an optimal shape of an OBB, dependent on the underlying geometry of triangular primitives of the node);
and building a bounding volume hierarchy (BVH) using the node having the candidate orientation (Fenney: [0082-0089], discloses building the BVH with the node being updated to have the instance transformation <characteristic orientation> applied to the AABB to create the OBB <candidate orientation>, see [Fig. 8]).
PNG
media_image1.png
418
260
media_image1.png
Greyscale
characteristic orientation (Fenney: [0082-0089], discloses an instance transformation <characteristic orientation>)
assigning, based on the characteristic orientation, a candidate orientation to a node (Fenney: [0082-0089], discloses assigning, based on the instance transformation, an OBB <where the orientation of the OBB is the candiate orientation> to the node)
Fenney does not disclose
assigning, based on Euclidean coordinates representative of the characteristic orientation, a candidate orientation to the node based on a characteristic coordinate for a subcube of a three-dimensional lattice that the Euclidean coordinates are within;
However, Nakashin discloses
assigning, based on Euclidean coordinates representative of the an address’ location, an address on a characteristic coordinate for a subcube of a three-dimensional lattice that the Euclidean coordinates are within (Nakashin: [0086-0087], discloses assigning, based on Euclidean coordinates representative of an address’s location, an address based on a characteristic coordinate for a subcube of a 3D lookup table <three-dimensional lattice> that the Euclident coordinates are within, see [Figs. 21A] below);
PNG
media_image2.png
276
852
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
542
900
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method disclosed by Fenney by using a 3d lookup table for data retrieval as taught by Nakashin. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification for optimal computational efficiency of data retrieval at O(1).
Regarding Claim 10, it recites limitations similar to Claim 1 but as a system. As shown in the rejection, the combination of Fenney and Nakashin disclose the method of Claim 1. The combination of Fenney and Nakashin further disclose
A system (Fenney: [Fig. 12], illustrates a system) comprising:
PNG
media_image4.png
378
506
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a memory configured to store a BVH (Fenney: [Fig. 12], illustrates a memory; [0030], discloses a memory storing a BVH);
and one or more processors that are communicatively coupled to the memory, wherein the one or more processors are collectively (Fenney: [Fig. 12, 0103], illustrates a CPU and a GPU <more than one processor> communicatively coupled to the memory) configured to: …
Regarding Claim 19, it recites limitations similar to Claims 1 and 10 but as a non-transitory computer-readable medium. As shown in the rejection, the combination of Fenney and Nakashin disclose the method and system of Claims 1 and 10 respectively. The combination of Fenney and Nakashin further disclose
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations (Fenney: [0041], describes a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon computer readable instructions, that when executed by a computer system cause the computer to perform any of the methods herein; [0093] details the computer system including a GPU and a CPU, <these units read on processor>) comprising: …
Claims 2, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fenney and Nakashin in view of Wiki Analog (“Index Lookup Table”, 2016), hereinafter referenced as Wiki Analog, and in further view of Migge (“Tetris Rotations”, 2017), hereinafter referenced as Migge.
Regarding Claims 2, 11, and 20, the combination of Fenney and Nakashin disclose the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium of Claims 1 and 10, and 19 respectively. The combination of Fenney and Nakashin fail to disclose the limitations of Claims 2, 11, and 20, however, Wiki Analog discloses wherein assigning the candidate orientation to the node comprises
selecting an index into a lookup table for the candidate orientation (Wiki Analog: [Image 1], teaches selecting an index to access corresponding entry in a LUT).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method, system, and medium disclosed by Fenney and Nakashin by selecting an index into a lookup table as taught by Wiki Analog. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention would have known a lookup table is capable of storing a candidate orientation been motivated to use this data structure to access candidate orientations for efficient data retrieval.
The combination of Fenney, Nakashin, and Wiki Analog do not disclose
a lookup table for the candidate orientation
However, Migge discloses
a lookup table for the candidate orientation (Migge, [Image 2], teaches precomputing rotations <reads on candidate orientation> and storing them in a lookup table).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method, system, and medium disclosed by Fenney, Nakashin, and Wiki Analog by storing precomputed rotations in a lookup table as taught by Migge. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention would have known a lookup table is capable of storing a candidate orientation been motivated to use this data structure to store candidate orientations for quick execution and reduced latency.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fenney, Nakashin, Wiki Analog, and Migge in view of Gottschalk (“Collision Queries using Oriented Bounding Boxes”, 2000), hereinafter referenced as Gottschalk, and in further view of Eberly (“Dynamic Collision Detection using Oriented Bounding Boxes”, 2008), hereinafter referenced as Eberly.
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, the combination of Fenney, Nakashin, Wiki Analog, and Migge disclose the method and system of Claims 2 and 11 respectively. The combination of Fenney, Nakashin, Wiki Analog, and Migge further disclose
retrieving a precomputed rotation matrix from the lookup table based on the index (Migge: [Image 2], teaches precomputing rotations and storing them in a lookup table and further teaches precomputed rotations derived from rotation matrices;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method or system disclosed by the combination of Fenney, Nakashin, Wiki Analog, and Migge by having precomputed rotations in a lookup table as further taught by Migge. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to use this data structure to store candidate orientations for quick execution and reduced latency.
Wiki Analog, [Image 1], teaches accessing data in a lookup table based on an index),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method or system disclosed by the combination of Fenney, Nakashin, Wiki Analog, and Migge by access data in a lookup table based on an index as further taught by Wiki Analog. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification for efficient data retrieval.
The combination of Fenney, Nakashin, Wiki Analog, and Migge does not disclose
applying the precomputed rotation matrix to a bounding box for the node to form a rotated bounding box
performing an intersection test on the node by retrieving
and testing the rotated bounding box for an intersection
However, Gottschalk discloses
applying the precomputed rotation matrix to a bounding box for the node to form a rotated bounding box (Gottschalk: [2.2.3], teaches an OBB is like an AABB, except it has an arbitrary rotation matrix. So that applying this rotation matrix to the axis aligned bounding box <reads on bounding box>, one will have created an OBB, also known as a rotated bounding box),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method or system as disclosed by the combination of Fenney, Nakashin, Wiki Analog, and Migge by rotating an AABB with a rotation matrix to create an OBB as taught by Gottschalk. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been able to make this modification to optimize the fit of a bounding box on underlying geometry.
The combination of Fenney, Nakashin, Wiki Analog, and Migge, and Gottschalk do not disclose
performing an intersection test on the node by retrieving
and testing the rotated bounding box for an intersection
However, Eberly discloses
performing an intersection test on the node by retrieving (Eberly: [Section 7.1], teaches testing nodes associated with OBBs for intersection by retrieving whether or not a node is associated with an OBB (hasOBB()))…
PNG
media_image5.png
256
534
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and testing the rotated bounding box for an intersection (Eberly: [Section 2.2-3], teaches testing intersection of OBBs).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method, system, and medium disclosed by Fenney, Nakashin, Wiki Analog, and Migge, Gottschalk by performing an intersection test on the node by retrieving node data and testing oriented bounding boxes for intersection as taught by Eberly. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention would have been motivated to use this more complex, but more accurate technique to precisely determine if the rotated bounding box intersects.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fenney and Nakashin in view of X et al. (US 2019/0272665 A1), hereinafter referenced as X.
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, the combination of Fenney and Nakashin disclose the method and system of Claims 1 and 10 respectively. The combination of Fenney and Nakashin disclose(s) wherein identifying which subcube of the three-dimensional lattice the Euclidean coordinates are within comprises
identifying which subcube of the lattice contains the Euclidean coordinates (X, [0013], teaches voxels <reads on subcubes> can be mapped to <reads on identify> a location (x, y, z) <reads as Euclidean coordinates> in a 3D grid of voxels for a 3D space <read on lattice>).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method and system disclosed by Fenney and Nakashin by identifying voxels based on coordinates as taught by X. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention would have known been motivated to make this modification to impart precise mapping and identification of subcubes.
Claims 5-6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fenney , Nakashin, and X in view of Chang et al. (“Fast oriented bounding box optimization on the rotation group”, 2011), hereinafter referenced as Chang.
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, the combination of Fenney, Nakashin, and X disclose the method and system of Claims 4 and 13 respectively. The combination of Fenney, Nakashin, and X fail to disclose the limitations of Claims 5 and 14, however, Chang discloses wherein
the Euclidean coordinates are in a Euclidean space and correspond in magnitude to magnitudes of spherical coordinates (Chang, [Section 3], teaches minimizing the volume of an OBB in a 3-dimensional Euclidean space; Chang, [Section 3.3], discloses an a Euclidean space (SO(3, R)) parameterized by the triplet (φ, cosθ, α) <which are spherical coordinates in a Euclidean space, the magnitude of the coordinates correspond to the magnitudes of the spherical coordinates because the values are the same as the azimuth value corresponds with x, the elevation value corresponds with y and the rotation value corresponds with z; further, when an orientation is defined in this space, it would be defined by said coordinates>).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method, system, and medium disclosed by Fenney, Nakashin, and X by having Euclidean coordinates whose magnitude is equal to magnitudes of spherical coordinates as taught by Chang. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention would have known been motivated to make this modification to simplify complex 3D problems with radial symmetry.
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, the combination of Fenney, Nakashin, X, and Chang disclose the method and system of Claims 5 and 14 respectively. The combination of Fenney, Nakashin, X, and Chang further disclose wherein
the spherical coordinates correspond to azimuth, elevation, and angle (Chang: [Section 3.3], states “the triplet (φ, cosθ, α), i.e., the azimuth angle, the cosine of the zenith angle and the angle of rotation around the axis defined by φ and θ, respectively.” <where the cosine of the zenith angle reads on an elevation>).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method, system, and medium disclosed by Fenney, Nakashin, X, and Chang by having the spherical coordinates correspond to an azimuth, an elevation, and an angle as further taught by Chang. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention would have known been motivated to make this modification to simplify neighbor searches and provide intuitive 3D positioning for spatial lattices.
Claims 7-8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fenney, Nakashin, and X in view of Young et al. (US 9754405 B1), hereinafter referenced as Young.
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, the combination of Fenney, Nakashin, and X disclose the method and system of Claims 4 and 13 respectively. The combination of Fenney, Nakashin, and X fail to disclose the limitations of Claims 7 and 16, however, Young discloses wherein
the subcubes differ in size (Young: [Fig. 1], illustrates subcubes of different levels or sizes).
PNG
media_image6.png
560
488
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method, system, and medium disclosed by Fenney, Nakashin, and X by having subcubes of different sizes as taught by Young. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention would have known been motivated to make this modification to attempt to equalize the number of rotations captured by the volume of each subcube when certain areas are denser than others.
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, the combination of Fenney, Nakashin, X, and Young disclose the method and system of Claims 7 and 16 respectively. The combination of Fenney, Nakashin, X, and Young further disclose wherein
the subcubes closer to a middle of a cube for the lattice are smaller than the subcubes on an outside of the cube (Young: [Fig. 1], illustrates subcubes closer to a middle of a cube smaller than the Level-3 subcubes on the outer parts of the cube).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method, system, and medium disclosed by Fenney, Nakashin, X, and Young by having subcubes closer to a middle of a cube for the lattice are smaller than subcubes on an outside of the cube as further taught by Young. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention would have known been motivated to make this modification to attempt to equalize the number of rotations captured by the volume of each subcube when certain areas are denser than others.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fenney and Nakashin in view of Gottschalk.
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, the combination of Fenney and Nakashin disclose the method and system of Claims 1 and 10 respectively. The combination of Fenney and Nakashin fails to disclose the limitations of Claims 9 and 18, however, Gottschalk discloses wherein
the candidate orientation is provided without labeled axes (Gottschalk: [2.2.3], teaches a rotation matrix is made up of 3 mutually orthogonal unit vectors <where rotation matrix reads on candidate orientation and unit vectors do not have labelled axes, the orientation is stored as numeric directions with no semantic axis labels>).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method and system disclosed by Fenney and Nakashin by providing an orientation without labeled axes as taught by Gottschalk. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification to map three values to six potential rotations, therefore saving memory.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (US 2012/0131595 A1) teaches a parallel collision detection method.
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 ISABELLA OCHSNER whose telephone number is (571)272-9322. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00 PM.
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, Devona Faulk can be reached at (571) 272-7515. 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.
/I.O./Examiner, Art Unit 2618
/DEVONA E FAULK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2618
Prosecution Insights