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 Objections
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9-10, 14 and 16-20 objected to because of the following informalities: typos which should be corrected as follows.
Claims 1 and 9-10, lines 5, 10 and 8 (respectively) all instances of “the other part” should read “an other part”
Claims 5 and 14, “the preset corner point mapping relationship” should read “a preset corner point mapping relationship”
Claims 7 and 16-20, “the same size” should read “a same size”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2-7 and 11-20 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.
Claims 2, 5, 11, and 14 recites the limitation "a target polygon region…the target polygon region" in lines 1-2 and second to last line of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is because it is unclear if this is a new instance of target polygon region or same instance as the parent claim, and “the” makes it unclear which instance is being referred to.
Claims 3-4 and 12-13 recites the limitation "a preset polygon region…the preset polygon region" in lines 1-2 and second to last line of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is because it is unclear if this is a new instance of preset polygon region or same instance as the parent claim, and “the” makes it unclear which instance is being referred to.
Claims 6 and 15 recites the limitation "of polygon region corner points" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is because it is unclear if this is a new instance of polygon region corner points or same instance as the parent claim.
Claims 7 and 16-20 recites the limitation "an additional image material …a fused image…the additional image material …the fused image" in line 2, line 4 and last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is because it is unclear if this is a new instance of additional image material and fused image or same instance as the parent claim, and “the” makes it unclear which instance is being referred to.
Claims 3-4, 6, 12-13, 15, 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) since they depend on a claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
Claim 10, recite a computer-readable medium. The broadest reasonable
interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable
medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and
transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer
readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the
broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected
under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. The USPTO recognizes that
applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which
the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and
statutory subject matter. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both
transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only
statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation "non-
transitory" to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter,
even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the
ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se.
Applicant’s specification in paragraph [0230] recites “It should be noted that the above computer-readable medium in the present disclosure may be a computer-readable signal medium, a computer-readable storage medium, or any combinations of the two…
the computer-readable signal medium may include a data signal propagated in a baseband or as a part of a carrier wave, it carries the computer-readable program code” Since Applicant’s disclosure does not limit the definition
of “computer-readable medium”, it could be a signal.
As an additional note, a non-transitory computer readable medium having executable
programming instructions stored thereon is considered statutory as non-transitory computer
readable media excludes transitory data signals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lantin (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0112503), hereinafter referenced as Lantin, in view of Sun et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0392130), hereinafter referenced as Sun.
Regarding claim 1, Lantin teaches An image processing method, comprising: acquiring an image to be processed (paragraph 14 teaches “provided a method for generating a stereoscopic presentation of a region-of-interest in a stereoscopic information representation, the stereoscopic information representation including first and second images”); this shows image processing method and using stereoscopic information representation (which contains image) meaning an image to be processed is acquired; recognizing a subject of the image to be processed to obtain an image subject object (paragraph 14 teaches “steps of: (a) selecting a viewpoint for the region-of-interest”); region of interest (ROI) would be a subject recognized/selected of the aforementioned image to be processed and it would contain (therefore obtain) image subject object; generating a target polygon region corresponding to the image subject object, wherein a part of the image subject object is located within the target polygon region, (paragraph 14 teaches “creating a lens surface having a predetermined lens surface shape for the region-of-interest, the lens surface having a plurality of polygonal surfaces constructed from a plurality of points sampled from the lens surface shape”); this shows polygonal surfaces (target polygon region) constructed for ROI (thus the corresponding image object), and since this polygonal surface is for the ROI, at least a part of image subject object from ROI would be located within target polygon region; and fusing the image to be processed and an additional image material to obtain a fused image according to the target polygon region, (paragraph 14 teaches “(c) creating first and second transformed presentations by overlaying the first and second images on the lens surface and perspectively projecting the lens surface with the overlaid first and second images onto a plane spaced from the viewpoint”); overlaying image onto a plane shows additional image material is fused with the image to be processed and this is done according to target polygon region since comes in a step after; the image content of the fused image in a second image region presents the additional image material, (paragraph 14 teaches “creating…second transformed presentations by overlaying the … second images on the lens surface and perspectively projecting the lens surface with the overlaid … second images onto a plane); second images here indicates second image region and overlaying onto plane shows additional image material included in image content of fused image.
However, Lantin fails to teach and the other part of the image subject object is located outside the target polygon region; wherein the fused image and the image to be processed have the same image content in a first image region; the first image region is a combined region of the target polygon region and an image region occupied by the image subject object, and the second image region is an image region outside the first image region.
However, Sun teaches and the other part of the image subject object is located outside the target polygon region (Sun, paragraph 47 teaches “special effect object is displayed on parts of multiple target display regions” and paragraph 49 teaches “if the special effect object includes a part displayed on the foreground region and a part displayed on the background region”); this shows part of image subject object (special effect object) would be located outside of target polygon region since the part is in the background which is a different target display region thus not the region of interest; wherein the fused image and the image to be processed have the same image content in a first image region, (Sun, abstract teaches “displaying a part of the special effect object located in the target display region on the initial image to obtain a target image.”); target image would be fused image and displaying special effect object on initial image to get to such shows the same image content (of special effect object) appears in a first region of both the fused/target image and image to be processed (initial image); the first image region is a combined region of the target polygon region and an image region occupied by the image subject object, (Sun, abstract teaches “target display region of the special effect object on the initial image, where the target display region is a foreground region or a background region of the initial image”); target display region (ROI) being foreground shows first image region and since ROI above is used to create polygonal surfaces/target polygon region, this foreground/first region is combined region of target polygon region and special effect object/image subject object; and the second image region is an image region outside the first image region (Sun, fig. 1b shows a background/second region outside of a foreground/first region). Sun is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of different image regions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lantin's invention with the multiple region techniques of Sun to ensure the special effect object can be displayed differently, thereby achieving a better result (Sun, paragraph 44). This would be done due to various regions for the special effect object.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lantin and Sun teaches
wherein the generating a target polygon region corresponding to the image subject object comprises: determining a minimum bounding rectangle region corresponding to the image subject object (Lantin, “when a lens 410 is selected by a point and click operation, bounding rectangle icons 411, 421 are displayed surrounding the base 412 and focal region 420 of the selected lens 410 to indicate that the lens 410 has been selected”); as also shown in fig. 4, this 421 rectangle is a minimum bounding rectangle region determined and it’s for the ROI thus corresponds to image subject object; and adjusting a preset polygon region based on the minimum bounding rectangle region to obtain the target polygon region, (Lantin, paragraph 16 teaches “adjusting a separation distance between first and second viewpoints for the region-of-interest by repositioning the first active area with the pointing device”); adjusting distance here would adjust the preset polygon region (leading to target polygon region) since ROI is adjusted from such, also this is based on minimum bounding rectangle region because fig. 4 shows to be able to move 460 which would be the mentioned repositioning; wherein the adjusting comprises size adjusting and position adjusting (Lantin, paragraph 47 teaches “"dragging" of The pointing device at the periphery of the bounding rectangle of the lens base 412 causes a corresponding change in the size of the lens 410 (i.e. "resizing")”); this shows resizing (size adjusting) the lens that corresponds to target polygon region and the position adjusting is aforementioned in paragraph 16.
Regarding claim 9, the device claim 9 recites similar limitations as method claim 1, and thus is rejected under similar rationale. In addition Lantin, fig. 3 shows device 300, with processor 320, memory 330 and paragraph 70 teaches “sequences of instructions which when executed cause the method described herein to be performed by the exemplary data processing system of FIG. 3”.
Regarding claim 10, the computer-readable medium claim 10 recites similar limitations as method claim 1, and thus is rejected under similar rationale. In addition Lantin, fig. 3 shows device 300, with processor 320, memory 330 and paragraph 70 teaches “sequences of instructions which when executed cause the method described herein to be performed by the exemplary data processing system of FIG. 3”; the memory here would act as computer-readable medium and stores the instructions/programs executed by processor.
Regarding claim 11, the device claim 11 recites similar limitations as method claim 2, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, 12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lantin and Sun as applied to claims 2 and 11 above, and further in view of Guo (CN 111783777 A), hereinafter referenced as Guo.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lantin and Sun fails to teach wherein the adjusting a preset polygon region based on the minimum bounding rectangle region to obtain the target polygon region comprises: acquiring corner point coordinates of rectangular-region corner points of the minimum bounding rectangle region (Guo, ; calculating corner point coordinates of polygon region corner points according to the corner point coordinates of the rectangular-region corner points; and adjusting the preset polygon region to obtain the target polygon region according to the corner point coordinates of the polygon region corner points.
However Guo teaches wherein the adjusting a preset polygon region based on the minimum bounding rectangle region to obtain the target polygon region comprises: acquiring corner point coordinates of rectangular-region corner points of the minimum bounding rectangle region (Guo, paragraph 39 teaches “the coordinate values (x, y) of the pixels within each contour region can be statistically analyzed. Determine the maximum and minimum values of the x and y coordinates within the contour area.”); this shows corner point coordinates acquired (within contour which is of object thus the rectangular region of target polygon from above) and would be of rectangle region corner points of minimum bounding rectangle region since determines minimum value of x and y coordinates; calculating corner point coordinates of polygon region corner points according to the corner point coordinates of the rectangular-region corner points (Guo, paragraph 39 teaches “using the four coordinates formed by the minimum and maximum values of x and y as vertices, the bounding rectangle of the contour region is generated”); this shows four corner coordinates of rectangle used to calculate corner points of contour/polygon region; and adjusting the preset polygon region to obtain the target polygon region according to the corner point coordinates of the polygon region corner points (Guo, paragraph 55 teaches “concept of boundary tracking can be used to obtain closed candidate contours. The specific steps are as follows: Start scanning pixel by pixel from the top left corner of the output image in step 3011. When a point on the contour is encountered, record its coordinates and start sequential tracking until the tracked subsequent point returns to the starting point”); this shows boundary tracking alongside corner point coordinates which means the resizing mentioned in claim 2 above for adjusting the preset polygon region to obtain target polygon region would be according to the corner point coordinates since they would be tracked when resizing. Guo is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of corner point coordinates calculations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lantin and Sun with the corner point coordinate techniques of Guo to ensure object enclosed by the bounding rectangle can be located, thereby improving the accuracy of detection (Guo, paragraph 13). This would be done by the corner points of bounding rectangles having coordinates calculated leading to a more accurate and precise location.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lantin, Sun and Guo teaches wherein the generating a target polygon region corresponding to the image subject object comprises: determining a minimum bounding rectangle region corresponding to the image subject object (Lantin, “when a lens 410 is selected by a point and click operation, bounding rectangle icons 411, 421 are displayed surrounding the base 412 and focal region 420 of the selected lens 410 to indicate that the lens 410 has been selected”); as also shown in fig. 4, this 421 rectangle is a minimum bounding rectangle region determined and it’s for the ROI thus corresponds to image subject object; acquiring corner point coordinates of each of the rectangular-region corner points of the minimum bounding rectangle region (Guo, paragraph 39 teaches “the coordinate values (x, y) of the pixels within each contour region can be statistically analyzed. Determine the maximum and minimum values of the x and y coordinates within the contour area.”); this shows corner point coordinates acquired (within contour which is of object thus the rectangular region of target polygon from above) and would be of rectangle region corner points of minimum bounding rectangle region since determines minimum value of x and y coordinates; calculating corner point coordinates of polygon region corner points corresponding to the corner point coordinates of each of the rectangular-region corner points according to the preset corner point mapping relationship (Guo, paragraph 28 teaches “based on the classification probability of the region to be processed enclosed by the contour bounding rectangle 109 and the contour bounding rectangle 110, the contour bounding rectangle corresponding to the highest classification probability is selected and mapped onto the image to be processed 102 as the target contour bounding rectangle”); since classification probability is selected and mapped as target contour bounding rectangle, this shows the corner point coordinates of polygon region (calculation of which is aforementioned) are calculated (corresponding to corner point coordinates of rectangular-region corner points as aforementioned in claim 3 above) according to the mapping relationship (which is preset corner point mapping relationship since maps the full rectangle onto image including corners); and generating the target polygon region according to the corner point coordinates of the polygon region corner points (Guo, paragraph 55 teaches “concept of boundary tracking can be used to obtain closed candidate contours. The specific steps are as follows: Start scanning pixel by pixel from the top left corner of the output image in step 3011. When a point on the contour is encountered, record its coordinates and start sequential tracking until the tracked subsequent point returns to the starting point”); this shows boundary tracking alongside corner point coordinates which means the generating of target polygon mentioned in claim 1 above for generating the target polygon region would be according to the corner point coordinates (of contour associated with polygon region) since they would be tracked when generating. The same motivations used in claim 3 apply here in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lantin, Sun and Guo teaches wherein before the calculating corner point coordinates of polygon region corner points corresponding to the corner point coordinates of each of the rectangular-region corner points according to the preset corner point mapping relationship, the method further comprises: determining a region display direction of the target polygon region relative to the image subject object (Lantin, paragraph 30 teaches “direction of the viewer-aligned perspective projection corresponding to the distorted surface 230 is indicated by the line”); this shows display direction of target polygon region and is relative to image subject object because is for focus point 232, also this would be before the corner point calculation of Guo since it is one of the first steps as mentioned in Lantin paragraph 30 “to produce detail-in-context presentations”; and acquiring the preset corner point mapping relationship corresponding to the region display direction(Guo, paragraph 28 teaches “based on the classification probability of the region to be processed enclosed by the contour bounding rectangle 109 and the contour bounding rectangle 110, the contour bounding rectangle corresponding to the highest classification probability is selected and mapped onto the image to be processed 102 as the target contour bounding rectangle”); since classification probability is selected and mapped as target contour bounding rectangle, this shows the corner point coordinates of polygon region acquired according to the mapping relationship (which is preset corner point mapping relationship since maps the full rectangle onto image including corners) and this would be corresponding to region display direction since the region display direction affects the contour bounding rectangle. The same motivations used in claim 3 apply here in claim 6.
Regarding claim 12, the device claim 12 recites similar limitations as method claim 3, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 14, the device claim 14 recites similar limitations as method claim 5, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15, the device claim 15 recites similar limitations as method claim 6, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 13 and 16-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the closest prior art of (or combination of) Guo teaches wherein the adjusting a preset polygon region based on the minimum bounding rectangle region to obtain the target polygon region comprises: acquiring corner point coordinates of each of the rectangular-region corner points and center coordinates of a rectangular-region center of the minimum bounding rectangle region (paragraph 88 teaches “determining the centroid of the target bounding rectangle as the position of the pattern corresponding to the target bounding rectangle.” And paragraph 55 teaches “Start scanning pixel by pixel from the top left corner of the output image in step 3011. When a point on the contour is encountered, record its coordinates and start sequential tracking until the tracked subsequent point returns to the starting point”); this shows center point coordinate and corner point coordinates acquired for each of the rectangular region corners of the rectangular region (which would be minimum bounding rectangle region when viewed in combination with Lantin and Sun).
However, the combination of Lantin, Sun and Guo fails to teach calculating a maximum distance from the rectangular-region center to rectangular region boundaries of the minimum bounding rectangle region according to the corner point coordinates of the rectangular-region corner points and the center coordinates of the rectangular-region center; taking the maximum distance as a boundary distance from a polygon region center to each of polygon region boundaries; and adjusting the preset polygon region to obtain the target polygon region according to the center coordinates of the rectangular-region center and the boundary distance.
Furthermore, no prior art of record either alone or in combination teaches
calculating a maximum distance from the rectangular-region center to rectangular region boundaries of the minimum bounding rectangle region according to the corner point coordinates of the rectangular-region corner points and the center coordinates of the rectangular-region center; taking the maximum distance as a boundary distance from a polygon region center to each of polygon region boundaries; and adjusting the preset polygon region to obtain the target polygon region according to the center coordinates of the rectangular-region center and the boundary distance when read in light of the rest of the limitations in claim 4 and the claims to which claim 4 depends and thus claim 4 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 7, the closest prior art of (or combination of) Lantin and Sun teaches wherein the fusing the image to be processed and an additional image material to obtain a fused image according to the target polygon region comprises: extracting first image content located outside the target polygon region from the additional image material to obtain a first background image (Sun, paragraph 71 teaches “and the background region is an image region other than the foreground region in the initial image”); determining region other than foreground as background shows extraction of first image content outside of the target polygon (foreground) region which would be from additional image material when viewed in combination and is to obtain background image;
However, the combination of Lantin and Sun fails to teach
creating the additional image material of the same size as the image to be processed;
However, Ostermann teaches creating the additional image material of the same size as the image to be processed (col. 12, lines 20-24 teach “animated entity is automatically scaled to fill the frame of the window in which it is presented; (2) An animated entity with the image as background from which it was created, in which case the animated entity has exactly the same size as in the image”); this shows additional image material of same size as image to be processed. Ostermann is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of filling frame with material of same size as image to be processed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lantin and Sun with the same size filling techniques of Ostermann to improve the presentation of the animated entity (Ostermann, col. 12, lines 38-39). This would be by using the entire space to fill up leading to better output.
However, the combination of Lantin, Sun and Ostermann fails to teach
filling the first background image with second image content to obtain a second background image;
However, Duan teaches filling the first background image with second image content to obtain a second background image, (paragraph 313 teaches “may fill the font area based on texture around the font area, to obtain a background image of the short column-wise screenshot image, and the electronic device 100 may crop or splice the background image to obtain a picture whose size is the same as that of the to-be-filled area, and use the picture as the preset background image”); this shows obtaining preset/cropped/spliced background image (second background image) by filling in original/first background image with texture (which is treated as second image content above); Duan is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of filling image with second content to obtain new background image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lantin, Sun, and Ostermann with the filling second content techniques of Duan to ensure the method avoids repeated access, reduces a waiting time of the processor 110, and improves system efficiency (Duan, paragraph 89). This would be due to creating second background image from first instead of starting over to create a new background image.
However, the combination of Lantin, Sun, Ostermann and Duan fails to teach
the second image content being inside the target polygon region of the image to be processed; and filling the second background image with the image subject object to obtain the fused image;
Furthermore, no prior art of record either alone or in combination teaches
the second image content being inside the target polygon region of the image to be processed; and filling the second background image with the image subject object to obtain the fused image; when read in light of the rest of the limitations in claim 7 and the claims to which claim 7 depends and thus claim 7 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to teach
calculating a maximum distance from the rectangular-region center to rectangular region boundaries of the minimum bounding rectangle region according to the corner point coordinates of the rectangular-region corner points and the center coordinates of the rectangular-region center; taking the maximum distance as a boundary distance from a polygon region center to each of polygon region boundaries; and adjusting the preset polygon region to obtain the target polygon region according to the center coordinates of the rectangular-region center and the boundary distance when read in light of the rest of the limitations in claim 13 and the claims to which claim 13 depends and thus claim 13 contains allowable subject matter. The same reasoning for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 4 applies here to claim 13.
Regarding claims 16-18, and 20, (for each of these claims) the prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to teach the second image content being inside the target polygon region of the image to be processed; and filling the second background image with the image subject object to obtain the fused image; when read in light of the rest of the limitations in claims 16-18, and 20 and the claims to which claims 16-18, and 20 depends and thus claims 16-18, and 20 contains allowable subject matter. The same reasoning for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 7 applies here to claims 16-18, and 20.
Claim 19 contain allowable subject matter because it depend on a claim that contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yonaha (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0378252) fig. 7, step 28 teaches “composite target object region and surrounding region”; this shows a fused image would be generate due to target object region and surrounding/background region being composited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAUMAN U AHMAD whose telephone number is (703)756-5306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/N.U.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights