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 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:
“defective pixel determination unit” in claims 1-17,
“direction detection unit” in claims 1-16,
“pixel interpolation unit” in claims 1-17
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) [ 1-3, 17-20 ] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. US 2020/0336684 A1.
[Claim 1]
Regarding Claim 1, Wang (US 2020/0336684 A1) describes an image processing system (Wang, 100) comprising:
a defect detection unit (Wang, 315) that determines whether a pixel is a defect pixel based on a pixel value of the current pixel and pixel values of neighboring pixels included in a Color Filter array (CFA). Wang teaches a defect detection based on whether a current pixel (e.g. target pixel) included in the CFA, is a defect pixel based on the pixel value of the current pixel and the pixel values of neighboring pixels (Wang, Paragraph 0056).
a direction determination unit (Wang, 320) configured to determine a direction of the target kernel on a second comparison. Wang et al. teaches determining direction based on a kernel. The kernel includes the pixel and a set of neighboring pixels. Each color gradients characterizes a color variation along different directions having identical attribute of a color gradient. Wang et al. further teach a direction determination of neighboring pixel comprised of 8 pixels in each four directions, with two neighboring pixels disposed in each direction (Wang, paragraph 0064). Furthermore, Wang teaches a comparison of target pixel and defined neighboring pixels for direction detection (Wang, paragraph 0067).
a pixel interpolation unit (Wang, 325) configured to interpolate pixel values of neighboring pixels in the one or more interpolating directions. Wang et al. teach selecting a set of neighbors for each pixel location based on a CFA pattern of 4-by-4 (Wang, Paragraph 0064).
[Claim 2]
Regarding Claim 2, Wang et al. teach an attribute of the pixels to include a pattern of color filters being associated with each pixel sensor (Wang, paragraph 0042). Wang et al. also teach attribute as same channel (Wang, paragraph 0070) color gradients.
Specification states a channel as “same channel may mean the location of a pixel having the same relative location from the central point.” (Specification, 0029). The definition of the “same channel” does not confine to a specific meaning because of the term “may”. Each color filter array (CFA) has output color for each channel and Wang et al. teaches same-channel color gradients as an attribute.
Please see MPEP 2111.01. The only exceptions to giving the words in a claim their ordinary and customary meaning in the art are (1) when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer; and (2) when the applicant disavows or disclaims the full scope of a claim term in the specification. To act as their own lexicographer, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366, 62 USPQ2d 1658, 1662 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The specification may also include an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope. In both of these cases, "the inventor’s intention, as expressed in the specification, is regarded as dispositive." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See also Starhome GmbH v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 743 F.3d 849, 857, 109 USPQ2d 1885, 1890-91 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that the term "gateway" should be given its ordinary and customary meaning of "a connection between different networks" because nothing in the specification indicated a clear intent to depart from that ordinary meaning); Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1367-68, 101 USPQ2d 1457, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (The asserted claims of the patent were directed to a tactile feedback system for video game controllers comprising a flexible pad with a plurality of actuators "attached to said pad." The court held that the claims were not limited to actuators attached to the external surface of the pad, even though the specification used the word "attached" when describing embodiments affixed to the external surface of the pad but the word "embedded" when describing embodiments affixed to the internal surface of the pad. The court explained that the plain and ordinary meaning of "attached" includes both external and internal attachments. Further, there is no clear and explicit statement in the specification to redefine "attached" or disavow the full scope of the term.).
[Claim 3]
Regarding Claim 3. Wang et al. teach a target kernel to be comprised of CFA pattern of 4-by-4 Q-CFA pattern (Wang, paragraph 0064).
[Claim 17]
Claim 17 describes a defect pixel determination unit configured to determine whether a target pixel is a defect pixel based on first comparison data that are a result of comparing pixel data of the target pixel included in a target kernel with pixel data of each of a plurality of pixels having attributes identical with attributes of the target pixel;
Claim 17 further includes a pixel interpolation unit configured to interpolate the pixel data of the target pixel by using pixel data of each of a plurality of pixels that are disposed at locations corresponding to a direction of the target kernel, wherein the identical attributes are attributes corresponding to an identical color and an identical channel.
These claims are analyzed and rejected as discussed with respect to Claim 2.
[Claim 18-20]
Claims 18-20 are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 1-2,5. Therefore, claims 18-20 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 1-2,5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2020/0336684 A1) in view of Fan et al. (US 12,470,837 B1).
[Claim 4]
Regarding Claim 4, Wang et al. teaches a color filter array (CFA)comprised of a kernel 4-by-4. However, Wang et al. do not teach four micro lenses corresponding to a unit pattern of the target kernel.
However, Fan et al. teach an imaging system comprising a quad Bayer array with plurality of pixel units, where every four pixels is covered by a microlens as shown in (Fan, FIGS. 3A-3B, Col. 3 Lines 45-47).
The embodiment of Fan, shown in (Fan, FIG. 3A, pixels 324, 326, 328 and 330) do not only function as PD pixels, but they also function as image pixels as well. Furthermore, all pixels in pixel array 300 shown in (Fan, FIG. 3A and FIG. 3B) function as PD pixels as well as image pixels. They function as PD pixels when the phase difference between a pair of pixels that are covered by the same microlens is determined. They function as image pixels when they are read individually to form a PD image (Fan, paragraph 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang, with the teaching of Fan, so that the pixels may function as PD-pixels as well as image pixels.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2020/0336684 A1) in view of Hirano (JP 2014121075 A).
[Claim 5]
Regarding Claim 5, Wang et al. teach the first comparison data comprise a pixel value that are a result of comparing pixel data of the target pixel included in a target kernel with pixel data of each of a plurality of pixels having attributes identical with the attributes of the target pixel.
Wang et al. do not teach the comparison data comprising of a gradient between the pixel data of the target pixel and the pixel data of each of a plurality of pixels that are in a horizontal direction, vertical direction and diagonal direction in relation to the target pixel.
However, Hirano teaches a defective pixel detection unit (Hirano, defective pixel detection device 1, paragraph 0020) and a calculation unit 11 calculating the gradient of the pixel value of each of the pixel group in a plurality of directions (Hirano, paragraph 0043). Hirano further teaches calculating the gradient based on a difference in pixel value calculated for each combination of the surrounding pixels adjacent in the predetermined direction for each of the surrounding pixels of each color included in the surrounding pixel group (Hirano, paragraph 0010). Hirano states that the surrounding pixel group used for calculation are in four directions of 0, 90, 45 and -45 degrees that cover horizontal, vertical, and diagonal directions as described in claim 5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang, with the teaching of Hirano to operate an image sensor processing using gradient value of the pixels to determine defective pixel detection method and program capable of determining a defective pixel existing on a thin line of a photographed image or in the vicinity of a thin line based on pixels of a plurality of colors.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2020/0336684 A1) in view of Chen (US 2012/0039545 A1).
[Claim 11]
Regarding Claim 11, Wang et al. teach a second comparison data comprising a pixel value that are a result of comparing pixel data of the target pixel included in a target kernel with pixel data of each of a plurality of pixels having attributes identical with the attributes of the target pixel.
Wang does not teach the second comparison data that is a sum of all difference values between pixel data of pairs of pixels that are disposed in a horizontal direction, a vertical direction, a slash direction and a backlash direction, respectively among pairs of pixels having identical attributes.
However, Chen teaches an embodiment of second measurement where a comparison data is comprising of (Chen, a detection module 112, paragraph 0018) summing up values of differences between a plurality of set of pixels in each direction of at least one portion of directions (e.g. each direction of the directions) differences between two sets of pixels of the same color channel. Chen elaborates this in Figs. 3-6 where the target pixel is V22. A pair of pixels V20 and V24, are used to measure the sum of differences between the target pixels in horizontal direction (Chen, Fig. 3) a pair of pixels V02 and V42, are used to measure the sum of differences in vertical direction (Chen, Fig. 4), a pair of pixels V0 and V40, are used to measure sum of differences in slash direction(Chen, Fig. 5, paragraph 0035), and a pair of pixels V00 and V44, are used to measure the sum of differences in backslash (Chen, 135-degree direction DN(D135), paragraph 0038) direction (Chen, Fig. 6, paragraph 0044).
Wang teaches a directional interpolation along edges (Wang, paragraph 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Wang, with the teaching of Chen to operate an image sensor processing and the combination of Wang and Chen would improve the directional interpolation of Wang by improved detection of edges.
[Claim 12]
Regarding Claim 12, Wang et al. in view of Chen teach all the limitations of claim 11.
Wang does not teach the second comparison data wherein the slash direction and backslash direction are divided into a horizontal direction and a vertical direction.
However, Chen teaches an embodiment where the slash direction (Chen, 45-degree direction DN(D45), paragraph 0029) is divided into a horizontal slash (Chen, Fig. 5, difference between pixel V23 and pixel V41, which are shifted horizontally from the difference value of pixel V22 and V40. Similarly, difference value between two pixels V12 and V30 are an embodiment of vertical slash direction (Chen, Fig. 5, pixel V12 and pixel V30).
Chen also teaches the backslash direction (Chen, 135-degree direction DN (135), paragraph 0038) is divided into a horizontal slash (Chen, Fig. 5), difference value between pixel V21 and pixel V43, which are shifted horizontally from the difference value of pixel V22 and V44. Similarly, difference value between two pixels V12 and V34 are an embodiment of vertical slash direction (Chen, Fig. 5, pixel V12 and pixel V34).
Specification states a “vertical slash direction may be defined as a direction that has an angle between that of the vertical direction and the slash direction” (Specification, paragraph 0073). The definition of the “vertical slash direction” does not confine to a specific meaning because of the term “may”. The vertical slash direction can be interpreted as the vertically shifted from the target pixel and using the difference value of the shifted pixels.
Specification states a “horizontal slash direction may be defined as a direction that has an angle between that of the horizontal direction and the slash direction” (Specification, paragraph 0072). The definition of the “horizontal slash direction” does not confine to a specific meaning because of the term “may”. The horizontal slash direction can be interpreted as the horizontally shifted from the target pixel and using the difference value of the shifted pixels.
Please see MPEP 2111.01. The only exceptions to giving the words in a claim their ordinary and customary meaning in the art are (1) when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer; and (2) when the applicant disavows or disclaims the full scope of a claim term in the specification. To act as their own lexicographer, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366, 62 USPQ2d 1658, 1662 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The specification may also include an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope. In both of these cases, "the inventor’s intention, as expressed in the specification, is regarded as dispositive." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See also Starhome GmbH v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 743 F.3d 849, 857, 109 USPQ2d 1885, 1890-91 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that the term "gateway" should be given its ordinary and customary meaning of "a connection between different networks" because nothing in the specification indicated a clear intent to depart from that ordinary meaning); Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1367-68, 101 USPQ2d 1457, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (The asserted claims of the patent were directed to a tactile feedback system for video game controllers comprising a flexible pad with a plurality of actuators "attached to said pad." The court held that the claims were not limited to actuators attached to the external surface of the pad, even though the specification used the word "attached" when describing embodiments affixed to the external surface of the pad but the word "embedded" when describing embodiments affixed to the internal surface of the pad. The court explained that the plain and ordinary meaning of "attached" includes both external and internal attachments. Further, there is no clear and explicit statement in the specification to redefine "attached" or disavow the full scope of the term.).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2020/0336684 A1) in view of Oka (US 2015/0339827 A1).
[Claim 13]
Regarding Claim 13, Wang et al. teach all the limitations of claim 1. Wang does not teach a pixel interpolation unit determining a similarity between two pixels included in the target kernel.
However, Oka teaches an image processing apparatus, wherein the pixel interpolation unit (Oka, Figure. 4, edge detector 105, paragraph 0054) determines whether the selected pixel (Oka, in a matrix of 9 rows and 9 columns including the target pixel, paragraph 0054) and the target pixel have the same color.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Wang, with the teaching of Oka to interpolate unit determining a similarity between pixels included in the matrix. Wang teaches a directional interpolation along edges (Wang, paragraph 0037) and combination of Wang and Oka would improve the directional interpolation of Wang by improved detection of edges.
[Claim 14]
Regarding Claim 14, Wang et al. in view of Oka, teach all the limitations of claim 13.
Additionally, Oka teaches that the pixel interpolation unit determines the similarity between pixels included in the kernel (Oka, in a matrix of 9 rows and 9 columns, including the target pixel, paragraph 0054) whether the selected pixel and the target pixel have an identical color. Oka further teaches that the definition of identical color is represented by a difference between a color of the certain pixel and the other pixel being smaller than a threshold value (Oka, paragraph 0053).
If the determination is affirmative, the edge detector (Oka 105) assigns a first logic level (an attribute of 1) to the number of similar color pixels. The attributed logic level of a first logic level or a second logic level to pixels with the similar color or identical attributed are not explicitly defined choices.
[Claim 15]
Regarding Claim 15, Wang et al. in view of Oka, teach all the limitations of claim 14.
Additionally, Oka teaches that the pixel interpolation unit (Oka, edge detector 105) after determining the number of similar-color pixels based on comparison within a range threshold values assigns a first logic level (Oka, paragraph 0056). As explained above that the function attributing of the logic level and interpolation of pixel data are not causally connected. The choice of the first logic level and the second logic level are alternative choices. The function of interpolation is not contingent upon the attributing of first logic level or second logic level. Oka teaches about attributing a value of 1 to the pixels above and is considered as a first logic level.
[Claim 16]
Regarding Claim 16, Wang et al. in view of Oka, teach all the limitations of claim 14.
Wang, as described in claim 14 above teaches an image processor wherein the interpolation unit determine the similarity of pixels included in the target kernel (Oka, a matrix of 9 columns and 9 rows including the target pixel) and attributes a logic level based on the difference value between the same color pixels. Claim 16 describes the interpolation unit interpolating the pixel by using pixel data of a neighboring pixel.
The definition of “neighboring” can be used to define “a thing to be situated next or very near another”. Therefore, the similar color pixels near the target pixels, as taught by Oka, can be considered neighboring pixel. As such, the analysis and rejection of the limitations of claim 14 can be used to reject claim 16.
Furthermore, there is no causality between interpolation function and the attribution of a logic level either first or second. As such, the attribute of a value 1, as taught by Oka, can be used as the second logic level instead of a first logic level, in another embodiment. Combining these two limitations of broader definition of neighboring pixel and assigning an attribute of value 1 to a second logic level, teaching of Oka is used to reject claim 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 are 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.
[Claim 6-10]
While the prior art teaches similar image signal processors (see rejections above as well as the additional prior art references cited below), the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest generating third comparison data and determining whether the target pixel is a defect pixel based on a difference value between the first comparison data and the third comparison data as recited in claims 6-10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following show additional prior art systems/methods for image sensors:
Kawai US 2022/0046193 A1
Jang et al. US 2025/0024159 A1
Hashizume US 2011/0102624 A1
Haruta US 2020/0027197 A1
Kang et al. US 2007/0002154 A1
Namkung et al. US 2024/0177280 A1
Jiang US 2003/0218621 A1
Segawa et al. US 2018/0213170 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHEDI NMN HASSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7173. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sinh Tran can be reached at 5712727564. 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.
/MEHEDI NMN HASSAN/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2637
/SINH TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2637