DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 2, 2025 (hereinafter "Remarks”) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
However, in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner is responding to some of the arguments directed to the prior art references that remain in the rejection.
On page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues claim 1 has been amended “to include the subject matter of previously presented claim 22, which has been canceled.” Examiner disagrees.
Examiner notes the amended claim language is not identical to former claim 22. Specifically, the claim has been broadened by introducing the term “based at least in part on” in addition to other language. Therefore, the amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection found below.
On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “[t]here is no discussion [in Wang] of dynamic brightness control based on facial detection using the AON camera system that is adapted to support a type of battery” (emphasis added).
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Wang is not relied upon for facial detection. Bui teaches dynamic brightness control based on facial detection using the AON camera system (paragraphs [0025], [0028], [0052], [0053], [0058], [0073] and [0110]).
Wang is relied upon to teach a detection of power supply type (battery or AC) and adjusting the brightness based on the detection result.
Taken as a whole, the combination of Bui in view of Hodge in view of Wang and further in view of Song teach the currently amended limitation “in response to subsequently detecting that the user’s face is looking at the display screen, automatically increasing the brightness of the display screen based on ambient light sensor readings, wherein automatically lowering the brightness to the present dimmer level or automatically increasing the brightness based on the ambient light sensor reading is based at least in part on a type of power supply providing energy to the smart phone and whether the user’s face is looking at the display” (enumeration and emphasis added).
Applicant's remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-17 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 7 and 13 recite “the present dimmer level” instead of preset dimmer level; and
Claims 2-6, 8-12, 14-17 and 19 are dependent on claims 1, 7 and 13, respectively, and objected to for substantially the same reasons, discussed above.
Appropriate correction is required.
*Examiner notes the rejections below are organized by 1) number of references followed by 2) numerical order.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bui et al. (USPN 2022/0147142) in view of Hodge et al. (USPN 2010/0079508) in view of Wang (USPN 2006/0238531) and further in view of Song (USPN 2014/0075220).
With respect to claim 1, Bui teaches a method for dynamic control of display screen brightness of a smartphone (Figs. 1-15), the method comprising:
detecting an idle mode trigger condition (paragraphs [0027], [0032], [0077], [0091], [0101] and [0102] teach detecting if the user has stopped interacting with the user device);
detecting, using an always-on (AON) camera system configured to perform facial detection of a user, if the user’s face is looking at the display screen (Figs. 1-15. At least Figs. 3, 4, 8a and 8b and paragraphs [0033], [0035] and [0046]-[0051] teach always on image sensors, including a camera, perform facial detection and determine if a user’s face is looking at a display screen) based on the idle mode trigger condition (paragraphs [0027], [0032], [0077], [0091], [0101] and [0102] teach performing facial detection only if the system has already detected that the user has stopped interacting with the user device);
in response to detecting that the user’s face is not looking at the display screen, automatically lowering the brightness of the display screen (Figs. 1-15. At least paragraphs [0025], [0050] and [0051] teach reducing display brightness to save power when a user is not actively looking at the display); and
in response to subsequently detecting that the user’s face is looking at the display screen, automatically increasing the brightness of the display screen based on ambient light sensor readings (Figs. 1-15. At least paragraphs [0025], [0028], [0052], [0053], [0058], [0073] and [0110] teach increasing display brightness based on data from ambient light sensors when a user is actively looking at the display).
However, Bui fails to expressly teach (1) in response to detecting that the user’s face is not looking at the display screen, automatically lowering the brightness of the display screen to a preset dimmer level that is based on a battery level of the smartphone; and (2) in response to subsequently detecting that the user’s face is looking at the display screen, automatically increasing the brightness of the display screen based on ambient light sensor readings, wherein automatically lowering the brightness to the present dimmer level or automatically increasing the brightness based on the ambient light sensor reading is based at least in part on a type of power supply providing energy to the smart phone and whether the user’s face is looking at the display (enumeration and emphasis added) (Bui, paragraph [0075] teaches user settings defining preferred brightness levels but is silent on a preset dimmer level).
Hodge teaches a known technique lowering the brightness to a preset dimmer level when a user is not looking at the display screen (Figs. 1-10 and paragraphs [0048]-[0055] and [0062]-[0067] teach reducing to a partial standby level or a standby level).
Bui teaches a base process/product of display adjustment based on face/gaze tracking which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that automatically lowering the brightness of the display screen comprises in response to detecting that the user’s face is not looking at the display screen, automatically lowering the brightness of the display screen to a preset dimmer level that is based on a battery level of the smartphone that is comparable to the base process/product.
Hodge’s known technique of lowering the brightness to a preset dimmer level when a user is not looking at the display screen would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Bui and the results would have been predictable and resulted in dynamic control of display screen brightness and in response to detecting that the user’s face is not looking at the display screen, automatically lowering the brightness of the display screen to a preset dimmer level which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Bui in view of Hodge teach automatically lowering brightness of a display to a preset dimmer level when a user is not looking at the screen. However, Bui in view of Hodge fail to expressly teach (1) in response to detecting that the user’s face is not looking at the display screen, automatically lowering the brightness of the display screen to a preset dimmer level that is based on a battery level of the smartphone; and (2) in response to subsequently detecting that the user’s face is looking at the display screen, automatically increasing the brightness of the display screen based on ambient light sensor readings, wherein automatically lowering the brightness to the present dimmer level or automatically increasing the brightness based on the ambient light sensor reading is based at least in part on a type of power supply providing energy to the smart phone and whether the user’s face is looking at the display (enumeration and emphasis added).
Wang teaches a known technique adjusting brightness based at least in part on the type of power supply detected (Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0005]-[0007], [0024] and [0025] teach AC or DC power change brightness. If battery power is used then different amounts of remaining battery capacity can have different behavior. The claim does not require any specific “based on” relationship and a reasonably broad interpretation includes the teachings of Wang).
Bui in view of Hodge teaches a base process/product of dynamic control of display brightness including a preset dimmer level which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that the preset dimmer level is determined based on a type of power supply providing energy to the smartphone. Wang teaches a known technique of adjusting brightness based on the type of power supply detected that is comparable to the base process/product.
Wang’s known technique of adjusting brightness based at least in part on the type of power supply detected would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Bui in view of Hodge and the results would have been predictable and resulted in wherein the preset dimmer level is determined based at least in part on a type of power supply providing energy to the smartphone which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Bui in view of Hodge and further in view of Wang teach automatically lowering brightness of a display to a preset dimmer level based at least in part on a type of power supply providing energy when a user is not looking at the screen. However, Bui in view of Hodge and further in view of Wang fail to expressly teach (1) in response to detecting that the user’s face is not looking at the display screen, automatically lowering the brightness of the display screen to a preset dimmer level that is based on a battery level of the smartphone; and (2) in response to subsequently detecting that the user’s face is looking at the display screen, automatically increasing the brightness of the display screen based on ambient light sensor readings, wherein automatically lowering the brightness to the present dimmer level or automatically increasing the brightness based on the ambient light sensor reading is based at least in part on a type of power supply providing energy to the smart phone and whether the user’s face is looking at the display (enumeration and emphasis added).
Song teaches a known technique lowering the brightness of a display screen to a preset dimmer level based on a battery level of the device (Figs. 1-8. At least Figs. 7A and 7B and paragraphs [0062]-[0065]).
Bui in view of Hodge and further in view of Wang teaches a base process/product of display adjustment based on face/gaze tracking to a preset dimmer level which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that in response to detecting that the user’s face is not looking at the display screen, automatically lowering the brightness of the display screen to a preset dimmer level that is based on a battery level of the smartphone. Song teaches a known technique of lowering the brightness of a display screen to a preset dimmer level based on a battery level of the device that is comparable to the base process/product.
Song’s known technique of lowering the brightness of a display screen to a preset dimmer level based on a battery level of the device would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Bui in view of Hodge and further in view of Wang and the results would have been predictable and resulted in dynamic control of display screen brightness and in response to detecting that the user’s face is not looking at the display screen, automatically lowering the brightness of the display screen to a preset dimmer level that is based on a battery level of the smartphone which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 2, Bui in view of Hodge in view of Wang and further in view of Song teach the method of claim 1, discussed above, wherein the preset dimmer level is determined based on a user preference setting (Hodge, Figs. 1-10 and paragraphs [0049]-[0055] and [0062]-[0067]; and Song, paragraphs [0062]-[0065]).
With respect to claim 3, Bui in view of Hodge in view of Wang and further in view of Song teaches the method of claim 1, discussed above, wherein automatically lowering the brightness of the display screen comprises lowering the brightness by a percentage, wherein the percentage is determined based on a user preference setting, the battery level of the smartphone, or a combination thereof (Bui, paragraphs [0050], [0056] and [0083]; and Song, paragraphs [0062]-[0065]. Examiner is interpreting this claim to include gradual reductions by a predefined percentage until the desired brightness is reached).
With respect to claim 6, Bui in view of Hodge in view of Wang and further in view of Song teaches the method of claim 1, discussed above, wherein the AON camera system performs the facial detection of the user at a first periodic interval when the smartphone is in a display-active state (Bui, paragraph [0035] teaches an arbitrary image generation rate).
Hodge further teaches a known technique reducing facial image generation in a different mode to conserve power (paragraphs [0065] and [0066]).
Bui in view of Hodge in view of Wang and further in view of Song teaches a base process/product of facial detection which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that performing facial detection at a second periodic interval longer than the first periodic interval when the smartphone is in a display-inactive state further conserves power. Hodge teaches a known technique of reducing facial image generation in a different mode to conserve power that is comparable to the base process/product.
Hodge’s known technique of reducing facial image generation in a different mode to conserve power would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Bui in view of Hodge in view of Wang and further in view of Song and the results would have been predictable and resulted in performing facial detection at a second periodic interval longer than the first periodic interval when the smartphone is in a display-inactive state to further conserve power which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 7, an apparatus, corresponds to and is analyzed and rejected for substantially the same reasons as the method of Claim 1, discussed above.
Bui further teaches a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code (Figs. 1, 2 and 13-15 and paragraphs [0031] and [0032] and [0093]).
The further limitations of claim 8 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2, discussed above.
The further limitations of claim 9 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 3, discussed above.
The further limitations of claim 12 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 6, discussed above.
Claim 13, a multimedia device, corresponds to and is analyzed and rejected for substantially the same reasons as the method of Claim 1, discussed above.
Bui further teaches a display (Figs. 1, 2 and 13-15); and a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code (Figs. 1, 2 and 13-15 and paragraphs [0031] and [0032] and [0093]).
The further limitations of claim 14 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2, discussed above.
The further limitations of claim 15 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 3, discussed above.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 10, 11, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bui et al. (USPN 2022/0147142) in view of Hodge et al. (USPN 2010/0079508) in view of Wang (USPN 2006/0238531) in view of Song (USPN 2014/0075220) and further in view of John et al. (USPN 11,227,060).
With respect to claim 4, Bui in view of Hodge in view of Wang and further in view of Song teaches the method of claim 1, discussed above.
Hodge further teaches a known technique using facial detection to wake, unlock and keep a display active (Figs. 1-10). Specifically, Hodge teaches utilizing the facial detection of the AON camera system to enable instant face unlock by automatically waking the smartphone and initiating a face unlock process when the user’s face is detected (Figs. 1-10 and paragraphs [0067], [0079] and [0116] teach unlocking and waking a device when a gaze is detected); and utilizing the facial detection of the AON camera system to enable hands-free user convenience features by automatically keeping the display screen active while the user’s face is detected (Figs. 1-10 and paragraphs [0010] and [0028] teach maintaining an active mode and keeping the display at normal brightness while the gaze is directed at the display).
Bui in view of Hodge in view of Wang and further in view of Song teaches a base process/product of controlling brightness of a smartphone using facial detection which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that utilizes the facial detection of the AON camera system to enable instant face unlock by automatically waking the smartphone and initiating a face unlock process when the user’s face is detected; and utilizes the facial detection of the AON camera system to enable hands-free user convenience features by automatically keeping the display screen active while the user’s face is detected. Hodge teaches a known technique of using facial detection to wake, unlock and keep a display active that is comparable to the base process/product.
Hodge’s known technique of using facial detection to wake, unlock and keep a display active would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Bui in view of Hodge in view of Wang and further in view of Song and the results would have been predictable and resulted in utilizing the facial detection of the AON camera system to enable instant face unlock by automatically waking the smartphone and initiating a face unlock process when the user’s face is detected; utilizing the facial detection of the AON camera system to enable hands-free user convenience features by automatically keeping the display screen active while the user’s face is detected which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Bui in view of Hodge in view of Wang and further in view of Song teach controlling brightness and an unlock state of a smartphone using facial detection.
However, Bui in view of Hodge in view of Wang and further in view of Song fail to expressly teach utilizing the facial detection of the AON camera system to enhance device security by locking the smartphone or notifying the user when an unauthorized face is detected.
John teaches a known technique using facial detection to lock a device when an unauthorized face is detected (Figs. 4 and 5). Specifically, John teaches utilizing the facial detection of the AON camera system to enhance device security by locking the smartphone or notifying the user when an unauthorized face is detected (Figs. 4 and 5 and Col. 28, line 63-Col. 29, line 11 teach locking a device when an unauthorized face is detected).
Bui in view of Hodge in view of Wang and further in view of Song teaches a base process/product of controlling brightness and an unlock state of a smartphone using facial detection which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that the device utilizes the facial detection of the AON camera system to enhance device security by locking the smartphone or notifying the user when an unauthorized face is detected. John teaches a known technique of using facial detection to lock a device when an unauthorized face is detected that is comparable to the base process/product.
John’s known technique of using facial detection to lock a device when an unauthorized face is detected would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Bui in view of Hodge in view of Wang and further in view of Song and the results would have been predictable and resulted in utilizing the facial detection of the AON camera system to enhance device security by locking the smartphone or notifying the user when an unauthorized face is detected which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 5, Bui in view of Hodge in view of Wang and further in view of Song teaches the method of claim 1, discussed above, wherein the display screen comprises an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) panel and wherein a power consumption of the OLED panel is reduced by lowering a pixel illumination intensity when the brightness of the display screen is lowered to the preset dimmer level (Hodge, Figs. 1-10 and paragraphs [0032], [0049]-[0055], [0062]-[0067] and [0119]).
However, Bui in view of Hodge in view of Wang and further in view of Song fails to expressly teach wherein the display screen comprises an active-matrix organic light-emitting diode (AMOLED) panel, and wherein the power consumption of the AMOLED panel is reduced by lowering a pixel illumination intensity when the brightness of the display screen is lowered to the preset dimmer level (emphasis added).
John teaches a known technique using an AMOLED display panel (Fig. 3A and Col. 22, lines 46-53).
Bui in view of Hodge in view of Wang and further in view of Song teaches a base process/product of reducing power consumption of an OLED panel using facial detection which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that the display screen comprises an active-matrix organic light-emitting diode (AMOLED) panel, and wherein the power consumption of the AMOLED panel is reduced by lowering a pixel illumination intensity when the brightness of the display screen is lowered to the preset dimmer level. John teaches a known technique using an AMOLED display panel that is comparable to the base process/product.
John’s known technique using an AMOLED display panel would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Bui in view of Hodge and further in view of Song and the results would have been predictable and resulted in that the display screen comprising an active-matrix organic light-emitting diode (AMOLED) panel, and wherein the power consumption of the AMOLED panel is reduced by lowering a pixel illumination intensity when the brightness of the display screen is lowered to the preset dimmer level which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The further limitations of claim 10 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4, discussed above.
The further limitations of claim 11 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5, discussed above.
The further limitations of claim 16 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4, discussed above.
The further limitations of claim 17 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5, discussed above.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bui et al. (USPN 2022/0147142) in view of Hodge et al. (USPN 2010/0079508) in view of Wang (USPN 2006/0238531) in view of Song (USPN 2014/0075220) and further in view of Holland et al. (USPN 2021/0174047).
With respect to claim 19, Bui in view of Hodge in view of Wang and further in view of Song teaches the method of claim 1, discussed above, wherein the AON camera system utilizes a low-power image signal processor (ISP) to enable the facial detection (Bui, paragraphs [0026] and [0035]).
However, Bui fails to expressly teach wherein the low-power ISP is separate from a primary ISP used for a primary camera of the smartphone.
Holland teaches a known technique using AON cameras in addition to a primary camera with different processors for each camera (Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0032]-[0041]).
Bui in view of Hodge in view of Wang and further in view of Song teaches a base process/product of a smartphone and AON camera with a low-power ISP for facial detection which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that wherein the low-power ISP is separate from a primary ISP used for a primary camera of the smartphone. Holland teaches a known technique of using AON cameras in addition to a primary camera with different processors for each camera that is comparable to the base process/product.
Holland’s known technique of using AON cameras in addition to a primary camera with different processors for each camera would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Bui in view of Hodge in view of Wang and further in view of Song and the results would have been predictable and resulted in wherein the low-power ISP is separate from a primary ISP used for a primary camera of the smartphone which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Paragraphs [0061] and [0075] of Oh (USPN 2005/0017994) teach changing the brightness based on battery or AC power.
Conclusion
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 ANTONIO J XAVIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7688. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 830am-5pm PST.
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, PATRICK EDOUARD can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/Antonio Xavier/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622