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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-12 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.
Claim 1 discloses a method for “generating an image” and “generating, using a decoder, a second image.” It is unclear if these refer to the same image.
Claim 5 discloses that “the content encoder is an encoder” and “the decoder is a decoder” therefore it is unclear if additional encoders/decoders are being introduced.
Claim 6 discloses “the generator is configured to generate an image based on a content code and a style code.” It is unclear if “an image” refers to the same “an image” as disclosed in Claim 1.
Claim 7 discloses “an image,” It is unclear which image this refers to.
Claim 8 discloses “a style code,” it is unclear if this refers to a new style code or a previous one.
Claim 11 refers to “an image”, it is unclear if this is the same image that is referred to as “an image“ in Claim 1.
It appears that the claims use a term “an image” repeatedly. Examiner recommends using a different terms for each image if they are different from each other.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 recites the decoder and encoder of Claim 1 wherein the encoder and decoder are comprised in at least one of a number of systems for various purposes. In accordance with the rulings of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, this is improper. See Ex Parte WENZHENG CHEN, YUXUAN ZHANG, SANJA FIDLER, HUAN LING, JUN GAO, and ANTONIO TORRALBA BARRIUSO, decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, App. No. 17/981,770, Appeal 2024-003924, pages 7-9 (""An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates." Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although "[s]uch statements often appear in the claim's preamble," a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987).")
Claim 9 fails to provide any limitations that distinguish the claimed encoder/ decoder in actual structure. The claim only discusses intended use for the encoder/ decoder of claim 1. Accordingly, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-5 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method and apparatus directed to receiving medical data and perform analysis of the medical data and provide the result as output.
With respect to analysis of independent method Claim 1:
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claim is directed to a method; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One, the limitation "generating, using a content encoder, a first content code associated with the first image;” as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a person determining the content of a given image in their head. Therefore, the limitation recites a metal process.
The limitation “generating, using a decoder, a second image based on the generated first content code; " as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, Covers using the content previously determined from the image to imagine an image in a person’s head. Therefore, the limitation recites a metal process.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase "evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception". Therefore, additional elements, or a combination of additional elements in the claim, are required to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, in this instance, the additional limitations are "receiving a first image;" and "and outputting the generated second image" which are essentially considered insignificant extra-solution activities of acquiring input and providing output of the result. In addition, the recited encoder and decoder are simply regarded as generic computer components. Therefore, overall, the additional limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Because the claim fails under Step 2A, the claim is further evaluated under Step 2B. The claim herein does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements in the claim are merely insignificant extra-solution activities and generic computing components, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent Claim 13 which additionally discloses “an information processing system, comprising: a communication device; a memory; and one or more processors connected to the memory and configured to execute one or more computer-readable programs included in the memory,” is analyzed in the same manner as Claim 1, and found not to be patent eligible under this section of the rules as the additional limitations recited are generic computer components.
In addition, with regard to dependent claims 2-5 and 9-13 viewed individually, these additional elements, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations as an abstract idea (mental processes), and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claim 2
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the claim is a method; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1. Therefore, the limitation recites a metal process.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
In this instance, the additional limitations "wherein the first content code represents structural information of objects in the first image" do not add significantly more to the abstract idea beyond further describing the content code. Therefore, overall, the additional limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim herein does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements in the claim merely define components, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the claim is a method; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1. Therefore, the limitation recites a metal process.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
In this instance, the additional limitations "structural information of objects in the second image and structural information of objects in the first image are same, the first image is an image of a first domain style, the second image is an image of a second domain style, and the first domain style and the second domain style are different from each other" do not add significantly more to the abstract idea beyond further describing the image. Therefore, overall, the additional limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim herein does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements in the claim are merely describing components, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the claim is a method; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1. Therefore, the limitation recites a metal process.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
In this instance, the additional limitations "wherein the first image is an image of a virtual image style, and wherein the second image is an image of a real image style" do not add significantly more to the abstract idea beyond further describing the image. Therefore, overall, the additional limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim herein does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements in the claim are describing components, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the claim is a method; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1. Therefore, the limitation recites a metal process.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
In this instance, the additional limitations "wherein the content encoder is an encoder of a generative adversarial network (GAN) model, and wherein the decoder is a decoder of a diffusion model" do not add significantly more to the abstract idea beyond further describing the content encoder and the decoder which are generic computing components. Therefore, overall, the additional limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim herein does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements in the claim are generic computing components, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the claim is a method; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1. Therefore, the limitation recites a metal process.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
In this instance, the additional limitations "wherein a second neural network model comprises the decoder, wherein the second neural network model is trained based on a plurality of second domain style training images and a plurality of content codes” do not add significantly more to the abstract idea beyond describing the neural network model. Additionally, “wherein the content encoder generates the plurality of content codes based on the plurality of second domain style training images, and wherein the decoder is trained to generate the plurality of second domain style training images based on the plurality of content codes." do not add significantly more to the abstract idea beyond describing the encoder and decoder. Therefore, overall, the additional limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim herein does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements in the claim are merely insignificant extra-solution activities and generic computing components, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the claim is a method; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1. Therefore, the limitation recites a metal process.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
In this instance, the additional limitations "wherein a first domain style training image is not used when the second neural network model is trained." do not add significantly more to the abstract idea beyond further describing the neural network model. Therefore, overall, the additional limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim herein does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements in the claim are merely insignificant extra-solution activities and descriptions of components, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the claim is a method; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1. Therefore, the limitation recites a metal process.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
In this instance, the additional limitations "receiving the second image; and generating, using the content encoder, a second content code associated with the second image, wherein the second image is an image obtained by resizing the first image, and wherein the generating the second image comprises generating, using the decoder, the second image based on the first content code and the second content code." do not add significantly more to the abstract idea beyond further describing the image. Therefore, overall, the additional limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim herein does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements in the claim are merely insignificant extra-solution activities and generic computing components, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 12
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the claim is a method; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1. Therefore, the limitation recites a metal process.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
In this instance, the additional limitation “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing instructions, when executed, cause performance of the method according to claim 1" does not add significantly more to the abstract idea beyond adding a generic computing component. Therefore, overall, the additional limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim herein does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements in the claim are merely generic computing components, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US20200311986 (hereinafter referred to as "Tong").
Regarding Claim 1, Tong discloses a method, for generating an image [See paragraph 0005 where a first synthetic image is generated], performed by one or more processors [See paragraph 0005], the method comprising: receiving a first image [See source image paragraph 0005] ; generating, using a content encoder, a first content code associated with the first image [See paragraph 0005 which discloses the first encoder extracts feature data from the image]; generating, using a decoder, a second image based on the generated first content code [See paragraph 0005 which generates a synthetic image using the decoder from the feature data extracted by the first encoder]; and outputting the generated second image [See paragraph 0005 where the synthetic image is output to the first discriminator network].
PNG
media_image1.png
701
1629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Tong discloses that the first content code represents structural information of objects in the first image [See paragraph 0005 above where the source semantic content includes information of the objects in the image, as well as the arrangements of the objects in the image].
Regarding claim 3, Tong discloses that the structural information of objects in the second image and structural information of objects in the first image are same [See paragraph 0005 where the source semantic feature data is used to generate the first synthetic image above and 0002 where the features of both the source domain and target domain are the same],
PNG
media_image2.png
143
1084
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the first image is an image of a first domain style, the second image is an image of a second domain style, and the first domain style and the second domain style are different from each other [See paragraph 0002 above where a style transfer is performed, which indicates that though the content of the images stay the same, the styles (such as white balance saturation, and brightness) differ].
PNG
media_image3.png
354
1248
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Tong discloses receiving the second image; and generating, using the content encoder, a second content code associated with the second image [See paragraph 0005 above where the synthetic feature data is obtained from encoding the generated second image], wherein the second image is an image obtained by resizing the first image [See paragraph 0005 above where the second image has a loss compared to the first image indicating that it has been resized], and wherein the generating the second image comprises generating, using the decoder, the second image based on the first content code and the second content code [See paragraph 0034 where the feature data and the synthetic image feature data are used to train the first generator network, which includes the first decoder that is used to generate the second image].
PNG
media_image4.png
103
1410
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Tong discloses A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing instructions, when executed, cause performance of the method according to Claim 1 [See paragraph 0028 which discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium that performs the method].
PNG
media_image5.png
247
1223
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 13 is similarly analyzed to claim 1
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Tong in view of the article “Diffusion-Enhanced PatchMatch: A Framework for Arbitrary Style Transfer with Diffusion Models” (hereinafter referred to as Hamazaspyan).
Regarding Claim 5 Tong discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein the content encoder is an encoder of a generative adversarial network (GAN) model [see paragraph 0005 above of Tong where the first generator network including the first encoder would be part of a SPGAN (Semantic Preserved Generative Adversarial Network model)],
Tong does not disclose that the decoder is a decoder of a diffusion model.
Hamazaspyan does disclose that the decoder is the decoder of a diffusion model [see section 3.2. Diffusion-Enhanced Patch Match (DEPM) of Hamazaspyan]
PNG
media_image6.png
275
332
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the GAN model for encoding of Tong with the diffusion model decoder of Hamazaspyan since they are in the same field of invention of generating images using artificial intelligence. The motivation to combine would be to capture “high-level style features while preserving the fine-grained texture details of the original image” as discussed in the abstract of Hamazaspyan. Diffusion models use an iterative approach that ensures a highly detailed and coherent image.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong in view of US 20220164921 (hereinafter referred to as Noh).
Regarding Claim 6, Tong discloses a first neural network model that comprises the content encoder, , [see paragraph 0005 of Tong above]. wherein the first neural network model is trained based on a plurality of first domain style training images and a plurality of second domain style training images, wherein the first discriminator is configured to determine whether a first domain style generated image generated by the generator is real or fake, and wherein the second discriminator is configured to determine whether a second domain style generated image generated by the generator is real or fake [See paragraph 0031 of Tong which teaches a first and second discriminator to determine if an image is real or fake]
PNG
media_image3.png
354
1248
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Tong does not disclose a style encoder; however, Noh does disclose the style encoder [see paragraph 0008 of Noh]
PNG
media_image7.png
179
834
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have combined the inventions of Tong and Noh before the effective filing data to include a style encoder since they are in the same field of endeavor of generating images using artificial intelligence. This will allow for the style information to be taken from a source image without the need for “manual setting of a corresponding relationship between input images” [see paragraph 0007 of Noh].
Regarding Claim 7, Tong and Noh disclose the method of Claim 6. Additionally, Noh discloses that the style encoder is configured to generate a style code associated with an image, and wherein the style code associated with the image represents a domain style of the image [see Noh paragraph 0008 (above) which generates a style code via the encoder and paragraph 0062 where the style code represents the domain]. The motivation to combine Tong and Noh is the same as previously discussed.
PNG
media_image8.png
110
837
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Tong and Noh disclose the method of Claim 7, and Noh discloses that the decoder does not use a style code when generating the second image [See paragraph 0081 and 0082 of Noh which discloses that the decoder uses a style feature vector created by interpolating two separate style codes. This indicates that the decoder does not use a style code, but instead a style vector]. The motivation to combine Tong and Noh is the same as previously discussed.
PNG
media_image9.png
316
1038
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claims 4, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong in view of the article “Content Disentanglement for Semantically Consistent Synthetic-to-Real Domain Adaptation” (hereinafter referred to as Keser).
Regarding Claim 4, Tong discloses the method according to Claim 3. Tong does not disclose that the first image is an image of a virtual image style, and the second image is an image of a real image style.
Keser does disclose that the first image is a virtual style while the second image is a real image style. [see section V. conclusion, of Keser which teaches that the system converts a synthetic image from the virtual game GTA) to a real image]
PNG
media_image10.png
305
703
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Tong and Keser since there in the same field of endeavor of generating images using artificial intelligence. The motivation to combine would be to ease data acquisition and forego the need for manual data annotation, when it comes to obtaining realistic images [see the introduction section I. of Keser.
Regarding claim 9, Tong discloses the method according to Claim 1 and a second neural network model that comprises the decoder [See paragraph 0005 of Tong above]. Tong does not disclose that the second neural network is trained based on a plurality of second domain style training images and a plurality of content codes, wherein the content encoder generates the plurality of content codes based on the plurality of second domain style training images, and wherein the decoder is trained to generate the plurality of second domain style training images based on the plurality of content codes.
Kesar does disclose that the neural network is trained based on a plurality of second domain style images and content codes [see section V. conclusion, of Keser above which discloses that the deep semantic segmentation network is trained on the translated images, where the translated images are in a real domain style. See also section E. quantitative results which discloses that the translated images come from GTA originally. But a translated into “Cityscapes” i.e. Real style images].
PNG
media_image11.png
133
678
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Kesar also discloses that the content encoder generates the content codes based on the second domain style training images, and the decoder is trained to generate the second domain style images based on the plurality of content codes [See Figure 2 of Keser which shows that the encoder generates content codes from the images and the decoder combines the information to generate second domain style images (real images)]. The motivation to combine Tong and Kesar is the same as previously discussed.
PNG
media_image12.png
659
1491
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10 Kesar and Tong disclose the method according to Claim 9, and Keser discloses that a first domain style training image is not used when the second neural network model is trained. [see paragraph 3 of section IV. Experiments, which mentions that the method is unsupervised]. The motivation to combine Tong and Kesar is the same as previously discussed.
PNG
media_image13.png
151
681
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANUSHA KASHYAPA whose telephone number is (571)272-8766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Chan Park can be reached at (571) 272-7409. 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.
/ANUSHA KASHYAPA/Examiner, Art Unit 2669 /CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights