DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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.
3. The following is a non-Final action in response to the preliminary amendment filed on 11/26/2024. Thus, claims 1-19 and 21 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
● Claim 21 further fails to comply with 35 U.S.C.101 since the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter
It is worth noting that a computer readable storage medium broadly covers both statutory and non-statutory subject matter (e.g., signal per se). Moreover, the specification appears to consider “signals”, along with “removable storage drive” and “hard disk drive”, as “computer usable medium” (see [0108]). However, claim 21 does not positively exclude the non-statutory subject matter. Also see MPEP 2106.03(I).
Thus, claim 21 fails to comply with the statutory requirement per section §101. Note that making the following amendment to the preamble of claim 21 corrects the issue above; such as, -- A non-transitory storage medium--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C.112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C.112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
● Claims 3-5 and 21 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(a) Claim 3 recites, “the retrieved appearance parameters”; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the above limitation in the claim.
(b) Regarding claims 4 and 5, claim 4 recites, “the defined granularity”; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the above limitation in the claim.
(c) Claim 21 recites, “the foundation makeup” (line 7 of the claim); however, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim.
Applicant is further advised to evaluate each of the claims and make appropriate corrections if additional discrepancies are discovered.
6. 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.
● Claims 1-19 and 21 invoke 35 U.S.C.112(f) or pre AIA 35 U.S.C.112, sixth paragraph for the following reasons.
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 at least one claim limitation that does 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 is “an augmentation module” for generating “augmented image data based on augmentation parameters associated with the foundation makeup including one or more appearance parameters . . .”. Thus, per Applicant’s specification, the above module appears to be an algorithm that the computer executes (see [0102]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 16, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Freeman 2019/0122404.
Regarding claim 1, Freeman teaches the following claimed limitations: a computer-implemented method of generating augmented image data with a simulated foundation makeup effect ([0009]; [0075]: e.g., a computer-based system/method that implements an augmented reality, which allows a user to try one or more virtual makeup products on captured face of the user), the method comprising: receiving image data captured by a camera, the image data including at least one region of skin pixels (FIG 1, label “5”; [0076]: e.g., besides incorporating a camera for capturing the image of the face of the user, the system also includes a tracking module for automatically identifying one or more regions of skin pixels—such as that of cheek—in the captured image ); generating, by an augmentation module, augmented image data based on augmentation parameters associated with the foundation makeup including one or more appearance parameters and one or more colourisation parameters, by: generating modified image data by processing the captured image data to highlight skin detail features based on one or more of the appearance parameters ([0012] to [0014]; [0076]; [0077]; FIG 20: [0092]; [0144]; [0145]:e.g., as part of generating an augmented image, the system processes various parameters, including: determining one or more foundation parameters of the foundation makeup; colorization parameters of the applied virtual makeup product; wherein the system also determines pixel values related to each identified region of the captured face image in order to modify the captured image by highlighting skin detail features, etc. Note that one or more or the parameters—such as color—represent the appearance parameters); computing optical components of the modified image data; computing optical components of the foundation makeup based on one or more of said augmentation parameters ([0126] to [0128]; [0131]; [0145]; [0150]: e.g., based on processing the captured image, the system determines one or more color values related to a background feature—such as the skin, and a foreground feature—such as the lip; and the system further determines foundation color values relating to one or more regions of the face image. Accordingly, the various color values being determined above indicates the process of computing optical components of the modified image data and that of the foundation makeup based on one or more of the augmentation parameters); and rendering augmented image data by combining the foundation makeup optical components and the modified image optical components; and outputting the augmented image data to a display ([0096]; [0178]; [0180]: e.g., based on the color values determined that signify the virtual foundation/makeup applied to each of the one of more regions of the face image, including one or more color values that signify background features and foreground features of the captured face, the system generates one or more optimized meshes that are layered according to a pertinent sequence to form an augmented image; and thereby, displays the augmented image via a display).
Freeman teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Freeman further teaches:
Regarding claim 2, the captured image data is processed to highlight skin detail features by: generating a detail layer by blurring the captured image data at a first granularity and computing a difference between the captured image data and the blurred image; computing a base layer by blurring the captured image data at a second granularity that is larger than the first granularity; and blending the detail and base layers ([0126] to [0128]: e.g., based on processing the captured face image, the system generates a foreground histogram that signifies a feature—such as the mouth—by populating the foreground region and the background region with corresponding frequency of color values; such as, increasing the frequency of the corresponding color in the foreground histograms and decreasing the frequency of that same color in the background histogram; and thereby, the system creates a mask with the face as the background and the mouth as the foreground. Accordingly, the foreground layer above corresponds to the detail layer, which is generated by blurring the captured image data at a first granularity and computing a difference between the captured image data and the blurred image; whereas, the background layer corresponds to the base layer, which is computed by blurring the captured image data at a second granularity that is larger than the first granularity; and the mask, which is composed of the foreground and the background, represents the blending of the two layers. Note that decreasing the frequency of the color that corresponds to the background increases the granularity; and therefore, the base layer has a granularity that is larger than that of the detailed layer);
Regarding claim 6, wherein the detail layer is generated based on scale and/or offset values of the computed difference that control the level of highlighting ([0126]; [0127]: e.g., as already discussed per claim 2, the system increases the frequency of the corresponding color in the foreground layer while decreasing the frequency of that same color in the background layer. Thus, the foreground layer, which is the detail layer, is generated based on scale and/or offset values of the computed difference that control the level of highlighting. This is because the foreground layer is created by increasing—i.e., scaling—the frequency of the corresponding color, while at the same time decreasing the frequency of that same color in the background layer. Note also that increasing the values of the color in the foreground and decreasing the values of that same color in the background also indicates offsetting the values);
Regarding claim 9, the optical components include decomposed frequency spectrum components ([0126]; [0127]: e.g., the colors that relate to foreground layer, the background layer, and/or the makeup, which are the optical components, are essentially decomposed frequency spectrum components. This is because a color is a decomposed component of the continuous electromagnetic frequency spectrum);
Regarding claim 16, the optical components of the foundation makeup are computed based on one or more of said colourisation parameters and one or more of said appearance parameters ([0126] to [0128]; [0145]; [0150]: e.g., as already discussed per claim 1 above, the system determines, based on the analysis of the captured face image, one or more color values related to a background feature—such as the skin, and a foreground feature—such as the lip, including foundation color values relating to one or more regions of the face image. Accordingly, besides determining colorization parameters relating to the foundation makeup, the system also determines additional appearance parameters that correspond to lighting effect);
Regarding claim 17, the colourisation parameters are defined by values of a colour in a defined colour space, pixel values of a texture image, or by a mathematical model to generate an array of augmentation values ([0093]; [0173]: e.g., besides incorporating a colorization parameters database that includes predefined texture values, the system also incorporates a colorization module, which applies colorization to the captured image by modifying pixel values of the image data. Thus, the above indicates that the colorization parameters are defined at least by pixel values of a texture image).
Regarding claim 21, Freeman teaches the following claimed limitations: a storage medium comprising machine readable instructions stored thereon for causing a computer system to perform a method comprising: receiving image data captured by a camera, the image data including at least one region of skin pixels (FIG 1, label “5”; [0075]; [0076]: e.g., a computer-based system/method that comprises a camera for capturing the image of the face of the user, the system also includes a tracking module for automatically identifying one or more regions of skin pixels—such as that of cheek—in the captured image); generating, by an augmentation module, augmented image data based on augmentation parameters associated with the foundation makeup including one or more appearance parameters and one or more colourisation parameters, by: generating modified image data by processing the captured image data to highlight skin detail features based on one or more of the appearance parameters ([0012] to [0014]; [0076]; [0077]; FIG 20: [0092]; [0144]; [0145]:e.g., as part of generating an augmented image, the system processes various parameters, including: determining one or more foundation parameters of the foundation makeup; colorization parameters of the applied virtual makeup product; wherein the system also determines pixel values related to each identified region of the captured face image in order to modify the captured image by highlighting skin detail features, etc. Note that one or more or the parameters—such as color—represent the appearance parameters); computing optical components of the modified image data; computing optical components of the foundation makeup based on one or more of said augmentation parameters ([0126] to [0128]; [0131]; [0145]; [0150]: e.g., based on processing the captured image, the system determines one or more color values related to a background feature—such as the skin, and a foreground feature—such as the lip; and the system further determines foundation color values relating to one or more regions of the face image. Accordingly, the various color values being determined above indicates the process of computing optical components of the modified image data and that of the foundation makeup based on one or more of the augmentation parameters); and rendering augmented image data by combining the foundation makeup optical components and the modified image optical components; and outputting the augmented image data to a display ([0096]; [0178]; [0180]: e.g., based on the color values determined that signify the virtual foundation makeup applied to each of the one of more regions of the face image, including one or more color values that signify background features and foreground features of the captured face, the system generates one or more optimized meshes that are layered according to a pertinent sequence to form an augmented image; and thereby, displays the augmented image via a display).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claims 3-5, 7, 8, 14, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman 2019/0122404.
Regarding claim 3, Freeman teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 2.
Freeman—as discussed per claim 2—does not expressly describe that the blending of the detail and base layers includes, for each pixel of the blended layer, modifying a contrast property of the pixel based on one or more of the retrieved appearance parameters.
However, Freeman already teaches that the system already considers, when computing parameters that are representative of a layer of foundation applied to the skin, “pixels that are a lighter representative of accurate parameters of the applied foundation makeup, due to overexposure from common lighting effects” (see [0145]; [0150]).
Freeman further teaches an alternative (third) embodiment that relates to a blending procedure, which performs a highlight adjustment when blending a makeup to a region of the captured face image; and wherein the blending adjusts, per pixel, at least the luminance of the makeup based on the makeup’s texture data ([0229]; [0237]: e.g., such adjustment—per pixel—of the luminance of the makeup indicates the process of modifying the contrast property of the pixel based on one or more of the retrieved appearance parameters).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Freeman’s first embodiment based on the teachings above (including one gleaned from the alternative third embodiment); for example, by incorporating, as part of the blending process, a functionality that selectively adjusts—per pixel—the contrast property of the foreground (e.g., the lip or face region with foundation) and/or one or more background regions of the face image; so that a more precise composite image would be generated, which takes into account one or more lighting effects on the foundation makeup that the user is trying, etc.
Regarding claim 4, Freeman teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 2.
Freeman—as discussed per claim 2—does not expressly describe that the blurring comprises applying a Gaussian blurring with the defined granularity, wherein the granularity defines a width of pixels sampled from the captured image data as input to a Gaussian blurring function.
However, Freeman teaches an alternative (third) embodiment that utilizes a Gaussian blurring that generates a blurred image; and wherein this Gaussian model receives—as part of its input—the shape of a feature (e.g., the lips) from the captured image ([0236] to [0238]: e.g., the Gaussian blurring/model above corresponds to the Gaussian function, which applies Gaussian blurring with defined granularity. In this regard, since the Gaussian model above takes—as part of its input—the shape of the feature/lips—from the captured image, this indicates that the granularity already defines a width of pixels sampled from the captured image data).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Freeman’s first embodiment, based on the teaching gleaned from the alternative (third) embodiment, by incorporating a well-known algorithm—such as, a Gaussian model—for generating the blurring effect; wherein the Gaussian model receives, as part of its input, one or more pixel values that represent the shape of the feature of interest (e.g., the lips) form the captured image; so that a more natural and soft image is obtained (e.g., softening the edges of one or more features to a more natural look, etc.).
Regarding claim 5, Freeman teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 4.
The limitation, “wherein a scale of the granularity is computed based on the resolution of the captured image data”, is already addressed per the modification discussed with respect to claim 4. This is because the captured image already has its original resolution; and accordingly, as the blurring effect is generated (e.g., to pop out the foreground by blurring the background), the system/algorithm makes the adjustment based on the resolution of the image it captured (e.g., common sense dictates that the desired blurring effect would not be achieved if the system is considering a different resolution, as opposed to the actual resolution of the captured image).
Note that the same motivation, which is discussed per claim 4, applies to claim 5 since claim 5 is dependent on claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, Freeman teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 2.
Freeman—as discussed per claim 2—does not expressly describe that the detail and base layers are computed from luma components of the captured image data.
It is worth noting that “luma” signifies the brightness in an image (the black-and-white of the image); and it is essentially gamma-compressed components of a video.
In this regard, Freeman discloses an alternative embodiment that adjusts the gamma values of the captured image using gamma properties—such as, nonlinearly adjusting the greys of the image by either boosting or diminishing their values ([0233]; [0235).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Freeman’s first embodiment, based on the teaching gleaned from the alternative (third) embodiment, i.e., adding a gamma or luma correction operation that further adjusts the pixel values of one or more of the layers being blended (i.e., the foreground layer and/or the background layer); wherein such gamma/luma correction nonlinearly adjusts one or more of the greys of the image by either boosting or diminishing their values, etc., so that the resulting image would be more natural to a human eye (e.g., a human eye does not see brightness linearly; and hence, such gamma correction, which encodes raw brightness into luma, prioritizes shades of light that a human eye easily recognizes).
Regarding claim 8, Freeman teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 7.
The limitation, “blending the detail and base layers further comprises applying a respective blend mode to increase or decrease brightness of the luma component of each base layer pixel, based on the pixel value of the corresponding blended layer pixel”, is already addressed per the modification discussed above with respect to claim 7. This is because the modified system already incorporates a gamma/luma correction operation, which represents the blend mode; and this blend mode further boosts (increases) or diminishes (decreases) the brightness of the luma component of each background (i.e., base) layer pixel. In this regard, since the operation is further adjusting the values of the pixels, it is based on the pixel value of the corresponding blended layer pixel.
Note that the same motivation discussed per claim 7 apples to claim 8 since claim 8 is dependent on claim 7.
Regarding claim 14, Freeman teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
Freeman does not expressly describe that the appearance parameters include a thickness parameter defining simulated thickness of the foundation makeup.
However, Freeman already teaches that multiple masks, which involve multiple layers of virtually applied makeup foundation, can be compounded together in order to produce a particular desired look or appearance in multiple application styles ([0090]; [0095]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Freeman’s system; for example, by providing an option that allows the user to specify a desired thickness value for the foundation makeup; and the system utilizes the thickness value to compound two or more layers of such virtual foundation makeup to mimic the desired thickness; so that, the user would have the option to easily recognize the appropriate thickness for a given of are right thickness foundation makeup.
Regarding claim 15, Freeman teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 14.
Freeman further teaches, the appearance parameters further include one or more additional simulated appearance properties, including a gloss or matte property, highlight, glitter, lighting adjustment, blend colour, and alpha blend ([0014]; 0095]; [0096]; [0145]: e.g., the simulated appearance properties already include one or more of: color blend, lighting, or alpha blend, etc.).
Regarding claim 18, Freeman teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
Although Freeman does not expressly describe, as applied to the first embodiment, the process of receiving—via a user interface—user input selection of the foundation makeup product and one or more associated appearance parameters, Freeman already teaches an alternative embodiment that provides a user interface to the user; and the user interface allows the user to select one or more virtual wearable products to try-on ([0209]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Freeman’s first embodiment; for example, by providing the user with a menu/interface, which allows the user to make various selections regarding the augmented image being simulated—such as, the brand of the foundation makeup, the color and/or the texture of the makeup, the location to apply the makeup, etc., and the system generates, based on the analysis of one or parameters pertinent to each of the selections (also see the discussion per claim 1), an augmented image that reflects the user’s look/appearance; so that, the user would have the flexibility to try various options until he/she discovers a combination that is more suitable.
Regarding claim 19, Freeman teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 18.
The limitation, “receiving user input selection of one or more additional makeup products via the user interface; retrieving augmentation parameters associated with one or more additional makeup products; and further augmenting the modified image data by applying colourisation to the pixel values based on the retrieved augmentation parameters of the additional makeup products”, is merely a repetition of claim 18 with one additional makeup product that the user is selecting. Accordingly, the modification discussed per claim 18 already addresses claim 19 since the modified system allows the user to select various types of makeup products; and subsequently, the system generates an augmented image based on the analysis of the parameters of each of the selected products (note also that the same motivation applies to claim 19 since claim 19 is dependent on claim 18).
● Considering each claim as a whole, the prior art does not teach of suggest claims 10-13 as currently presented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached from 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PETER VASAT can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights