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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on July 16, 2024 and March 10, 2025 were filed after the mailing date of the application on July 16, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: According to MPEP 608.01(m), the present Office practice is to insist that each claim must be the object of a sentence starting with “I (or we) claim,” “The invention claimed is” (or the equivalent). Thus, the heading simply stating “CLAIMS” is not sufficient.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “three-dimensional position detecting unit” in claims 1, 2, and 9, “data transmission unit” in claims 1, 2, and 9, “first image generation unit” in claims 1, 2, and 10, “first image combining unit” in claims 1, 2, and 10, “second image generation unit” in claims 3, 4, and 7, and “second image combining unit” in claims 3, 4, and 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Anderson (US 20210072947A1).
Anderson teaches an assistance device (instructor 101 is viewing shared 3D virtual space 103 in AR mode with head-mounted AR/VR display 150, [0020]) disposed to be separated from the assisted device (instructor room 110, with an instructor 101 disposed therein, and a learner room 120, with a learner 102 disposed therein, [0017], instructor room 110 and learner room 120 are located remotely from each other, [0018]), the assistance device [0020] comprising a storage that stores one or more programs and a central processing unit (CPU), and the CPU accesses the storage and executes the one or more programs to cause the CPU to implement (non-transitory computer readable medium stores instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the steps, [0097]): a three-dimensional position detecting unit that three-dimensionally detects a hand position of an instructor (101); and a data transmission unit that transmits position information indicating the hand position detected by the three-dimensional position detecting unit (transmission of 3D space information 115 to learner room 120 enables learner 102 to see a synchronous avatar 101A of instructor 101, synchronous avatar 101A can include tracked body parts of instructor 101, such as the hands, when learner 102 is viewing shared 3D virtual space 103 in AR mode with head-mounted AR/VR display 150, synchronous avatar 101A is visible to learner 102 and can indicate to learner 102 where instructor 101 is located in a shared 3D virtual space 103 and where instructor 101 is pointing in real-time, [0020], real-time location and orientation of a position-tracked object associated with the remote user is represented by synchronous avatar 340, such as the hands of the remote user, the real-time tracking is provided by the spatial tracker receivers of the 3D spatial data capture system, [0042]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 20210072947A1) in view of Gauglitz (US 20160358383A1).
As per Claim 1, Anderson teaches an assistance system (100, Fig. 1) (MR telepresence system 100 is configured to enable remote guidance and instruction of a user in physical tasks via bi-directional MR telepresence, [0017]) comprising: an assisted device (learner 102 is viewing shared 3D virtual space 103 in AR mode with head-mounted AR/VR display 150, [0020]); and an assistance device (instructor 101 is viewing shared 3D virtual space 103 in AR mode with head-mounted AR/VR display 150, [0020]) disposed to be separated from the assisted device (instructor room 110, with an instructor 101 disposed therein, and a learner room 120, with a learner 102 disposed therein, [0017], instructor room 110 and learner room 120 are located remotely from each other, [0018]), wherein: the assistance device [0020] includes a first storage that stores one or more first programs and a first central processing unit (CPU), and the first CPU accesses the first storage and executes the one or more first programs to cause the first CPU to implement (non-transitory computer readable medium stores instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the steps, [0097]): a three-dimensional position detecting unit that three-dimensionally detects a hand position of an instructor (101); and a data transmission unit that transmits position information indicating the hand position detected by the three-dimensional position detecting unit (transmission of 3D space information 115 to learner room 120 enables learner 102 to see a synchronous avatar 101A of instructor 101, synchronous avatar 101A can include tracked body parts of instructor 101, such as the hands, when learner 102 is viewing shared 3D virtual space 103 in AR mode with head-mounted AR/VR display 150, synchronous avatar 101A is visible to learner 102 and can indicate to learner 102 where instructor 101 is located in a shared 3D virtual space 103 and where instructor 101 is pointing in real-time, [0020], real-time location and orientation of a position-tracked object associated with the remote user is represented by synchronous avatar 340, such as the hands of the remote user, the real-time tracking is provided by the spatial tracker receivers of the 3D spatial data capture system, [0042]), and the assisted device [0020] includes a second storage that stores one or more second programs and a second central processing unit (CPU), and the second CPU accesses the first storage and execute the one or more second programs to cause the second CPU to implement [0097]: a first image generation unit that generates a hand model image that imitates a hand of the instructor based on the transmitted position information; and a first image combining unit that combines the hand model image with a captured image taken by the assisted device to generate a first combined image (transmission of 3D space information 115 to learner room 120 enables learner 102 to see a synchronous avatar 101A of instructor 101, synchronous avatar 101A can include tracked body parts of instructor 101, such as the hands, when learner 102 is viewing shared 3D virtual space 103 in AR mode with head-mounted AR/VR display 150, synchronous avatar 101A is visible to learner 102 and can indicate to learner 102 where instructor 101 is located in a shared 3D virtual space 103 and where instructor 101 is pointing in real-time, [0020], when head-mounted AR/VR display 150 is in AR mode, graphics are overlaid on a video stream of the physical world from the current point of view of the user wearing the head-mounted AR/VR display 150, thus, the user’s view of the physical world is augmented with additional graphics, examples of such graphics include synchronous avatar 101A (which corresponds to the location of the remote user in 3D shared virtual space 103), [0022]).
However, Anderson does not expressly teach that the hand model image is in three dimensions. However, Gauglitz teaches generating a hand model image in three dimensions (use three-dimensional input for the purposes of remote collaboration, by reconstructing the remote user’s hand in 3D and transferring this reconstruction and 3D motion trail into the local user’s space, [0134]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson so that the hand model image is in three dimensions because Gauglitz suggests that this way, the users can have a fully immersive, 3D telepresence experience which is more realistic [0036].
As per Claim 2, Anderson teaches the data transmission unit transmits the position information, the first image generation unit generates the hand model image based on the transmitted position information, and the first image combining unit combines the hand model image with the captured image to generate a combined image, as discussed in the rejection for Claim 1.
However, Anderson does not teach that the three-dimensional position detecting unit detects an instruction content of the instructor based on the hand position of the instructor, the data transmission unit transmits instruction content information indicating the instruction content, the first image generation unit generates a three-dimensional annotation image based on the transmitted instruction content information, and the first image combining unit combines the hand model image and the three-dimensional annotation image with the captured image to generate a second combined image. However, Gauglitz teaches wherein: the three-dimensional position detecting unit detects an instruction content of the instructor based on the hand position of the instructor, the data transmission unit transmits the position information and instruction content information indicating the instruction content, the first image generation unit generates the hand model image based on the transmitted position information, and generates a three-dimensional annotation image based on the transmitted instruction content information, and the first image combining unit combines the hand model image and the three-dimensional annotation image with the captured image to generate a second combined image (identifying spatial instructions by creating annotations, where the annotations are transmitted to the collaborator in physical location A and visualized, for example, the AR solution may include a visual display for the collaborator in physical location A, wherein the annotations are overlaid onto the respective real world object or location, [0026], using a finger, the remote user can draw annotations into the scene, since the camera is tracked with respect to the scene, these annotations automatically obtain a position in world coordinates, [0142], 3D input, for interaction in a three-dimensional space, one should use an interface, which affords three-dimensional input and thus can create annotations in 3D, use three-dimensional input for the purposes of remote collaboration, by reconstructing the remote user’s hand in 3D and transferring this reconstruction and 3D motion trail into the local user’s space, [0134]). This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 1.
As per Claim 3, Anderson teaches in instructor guidance mode, learner 102 employs head-mounted AR/VR display 150 in AR mode and instructor 101 employs head-mounted AR/VR display 150 in VR mode. Instructor 101 can see 2D video display 330 and 3D widget 310 of learner room 110, learner 102 can see synchronous avatar 101A of instructor 101, and instructor 101 and learner 102 can both see annotations made in shared 3D virtual space 103. Within instructor guidance mode, instructor 101 can scaffold learner 102 as certain tasks are performed by learner in learner room 120. Instructor 101 can provide proactive cues, guidance, and other real-time feedback regarding the performance of learner 102 using annotations and gestures [0045]. The assisted device displays the first combined image which is the combination of the hand model image with the captured image taken by the assisted device [0020, 0022]. Since Anderson teaches that in instructor guidance mode, the instructor 101 employs head-mounted AR/VR display 150 in VR mode [0045], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this means that in instructor guidance mode, the instructor 101 employs head-mounted AR/VR display 150 in VR mode to see what the learner 102 is seeing on his head-mounted AR/VR display 150, which is the first combined image which is the combination of the hand model image with the captured image taken by the assisted device [0045, 0020, 0022]. Thus, Anderson teaches wherein: the first CPU accesses the first storage and executes the one or more first programs to further cause the first CPU to implement: a second image generation unit that generates the hand model image based on the position information detected by the three-dimensional position detecting unit; and a second image combining unit that combines the hand model image with the captured image transmitted from the assisted device to generate the first combined image [0045, 0020, 0022].
As per Claim 4, Anderson teaches in instructor guidance mode, learner 102 employs head-mounted AR/VR display 150 in AR mode and instructor 101 employs head-mounted AR/VR display 150 in VR mode. Instructor 101 can see 2D video display 330 and 3D widget 310 of learner room 110, learner 102 can see synchronous avatar 101A of instructor 101, and instructor 101 and learner 102 can both see annotations made in shared 3D virtual space 103. Within instructor guidance mode, instructor 101 can scaffold learner 102 as certain tasks are performed by learner in learner room 120. Instructor 101 can provide proactive cues, guidance, and other real-time feedback regarding the performance of learner 102 using annotations and gestures [0045]. The assisted device displays the combined image which is the combination of the hand model image with the captured image taken by the assisted device [0020, 0022]. Since Anderson teaches that in instructor guidance mode, the instructor 101 employs head-mounted AR/VR display 150 in VR mode [0045], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this means that in instructor guidance mode, the instructor 101 employs head-mounted AR/VR display 150 in VR mode to see what the learner 102 is seeing on his head-mounted AR/VR display 150, which is the combined image which is the combination of the hand model image with the captured image taken by the assisted device [0045, 0020, 0022]. Thus, Anderson teaches the second image generation unit generates the hand model image based on the position information, and the second image combining unit combines the hand model image with the captured image to generate the combined image [0045, 0020, 0022].
However, Anderson does not teach the second image generation unit generates the three-dimensional annotation image based on the instruction content information, and the second image combining unit combines the hand model image and the three-dimensional annotation image with the captured image to generate the second combined image. However, Gauglitz teaches the assisted device displays the combined image which is the combination of the hand model image and the three-dimensional annotation image with the captured image, as discussed in the rejection for Claim 2. Since it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Anderson teaches that in instructor guidance mode, the instructor 101 employs head-mounted AR/VR display 150 in VR mode to see what the learner 102 is seeing on his head-mounted AR/VR display 150, as discussed above, this teaching from Gauglitz of the three-dimensional annotation image can be implemented into the device of Anderson so that the second image generation unit generates the hand model image and the three-dimensional annotation image based on the position information and the instruction content information, and
The second image combining unit combines the hand model image and the three-dimensional annotation image with the captured image to generate the second combined image. This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 1.
17. As per Claim 7, Claim 7 is similar in scope to Claim 3, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
18. As per Claim 10, the combination of Anderson and Gauglitz teaches an assisted device disposed to be separated from an assistance device, the assisted device comprising a storage that stores one or more programs and a central processing unit (CPU), and the CPU accesses the storage and executes the one or more programs to cause the CPU to implement: a first image generation unit that generates a three-dimensional hand model image imitating a hand of an instructor based on position information indicating a hand position of the instructor three-dimensionally detected in the assistance device; and a first image combining unit that combines the three-dimensional hand model image with a captured image taken by the assisted device to generate a first combined image, as discussed in the rejection for Claim 1.
19. Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 20210072947A1) and Gauglitz (US 20160358383A1) in view of Meglan (US 20120045742A1) and Harris (US 20170026638A1).
20. As per Claim 5, Anderson and Gauglitz are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 4.
However, Anderson and Gauglitz do not teach wherein: the first image generation unit generates a right eye hand model image and a left eye hand model image based on the position information using a shader process of a graphics processing unit (GPU), and combines the right eye hand model image and the left eye hand model image by a line-by-line method to generate the hand model image. However, Meglan teaches wherein: the first image generation unit generates a right eye hand model image and a left eye hand model image using a graphics processing unit (GPU), and combines the right eye hand model image and the left eye hand model image to generate the hand model image (stereo display that includes a separate video feed for each of the trainee’s eyes, provide stereoscopic output video feeds to the display 1040 so that the trainee has 3D depth perception, [0094], provide instructional guidance cues provided by an instructor to point the trainee 100 to move the trainee’s hands to the proper location (specific visual guidance overlaid on the output video feed provided to the display 40), overlay on the display 40 semi-transparent, correctly positioned simulated hands, [0101], graphics processing units, [0103]). Thus, this teaching from Meglan can be implemented on the hand model image of Anderson so that the first image generation unit generates a right eye hand model image and a left eye hand model image based on the position information using a GPU, and combines the right eye hand model image and the left eye hand model image to generate the hand model image.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson and Gauglitz so that the first image generation unit generates a right eye hand model image and a left eye hand model image based on the position information using a GPU, and combines the right eye hand model image and the left eye hand model image to generate the hand model image as suggested by Meglan. It is well-known in the art that stereoscopic imaging is a well-known way to generate images so that the user perceives the images as 3D images, and thus the images are more realistic.
However, Anderson, Gauglitz, and Meglan do not teach generating the images using a shader process of the GPU, and combining the images by a line-by-line method to generate the hand model image. However, Harris teaches the first image generation unit generates a right eye image and a left eye image using a shader process of a GPU, and combines the right eye image and the left eye image by a line-by-line method to generate the image (autostereoscopic display 110 when the view frames are extracted and interlaced, [0181], autostereoscopic movie, utilizes the GPU, and send it through a custom-built shader that prepares the interlaced frame and then renders the interlaced frame on the screen, [0191]). Thus, this teaching from Harris can be implemented into the combination of Anderson and Meglan so that the first image generation unit generates a right eye hand model image and a left eye hand model image based on the position information using a shader process of a GPU, and combines the right eye hand model image and the left eye hand model image by a line-by-line method to generate the hand model image.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson, Gauglitz, and Meglan so that the first image generation unit generates a right eye hand model image and a left eye hand model image based on the position information using a shader process of a graphics processing unit (GPU), and combines the right eye hand model image and the left eye hand model image by a line-by-line method to generate the hand model image as suggested by Harris. Stereoscopic interlacing is well-known in the art and is advantageous because it has a high frame rate with no temporal flicker.
21. As per Claim 8, Claim 8 is similar in scope to Claim 5, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
22. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 20210072947A1), Gauglitz (US 20160358383A1), Meglan (US 20120045742A1), and Harris (US 20170026638A1) in view of Yamaji (US 20120235990A1).
Anderson, Gauglitz, Meglan, and Harris are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 5.
However, Anderson and Gauglitz do not teach wherein: the first image generation unit displaces positions in a horizontal direction of the right eye hand model image and the left eye hand model image to perform a parallax adjustment of the hand model image. However, Meglan teaches the first image generation unit generates a right eye hand model image and a left eye hand model image [0094, 0101]. This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 5.
However, Anderson, Gauglitz, Meglan, and Harris do not teach wherein: the first image generation unit displaces positions in a horizontal direction of the right eye hand model image and the left eye hand model image to perform a parallax adjustment of the hand model image. However, Yamaji teaches wherein: the first image generation unit displaces positions in a horizontal direction of the right eye image and the left eye image to perform a parallax adjustment of the image (displacing right and left viewpoint images in horizontal directions to adjust the amount of parallax, [0004]). Since Meglan teaches the first image generation unit generates a right eye hand model image and a left eye hand model image [0094, 0101], this teaching from Yamaji can be implemented on the right eye hand model image and the left eye hand model image of Meglan so that the first image generation unit displaces positions in a horizontal direction of the right eye hand model image and the left eye hand model image to perform a parallax adjustment of the hand model image.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson, Gauglitz, Meglan and Harris so that the first image generation unit displaces positions in a horizontal direction of the right eye hand model image and the left eye hand model image to perform a parallax adjustment of the hand model image because Yamaji suggests that it is well-known in the art to do this to modify the depth of a 3D image [0004].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONI HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7785. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6:30pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571)272-7794. 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.
JH
/JONI HSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611