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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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 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 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.
Claims 1-4, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran (US 20220382435 A1) in view of Miranda (US 20210209859 A1).
As per claim 1, Tran teaches the claimed:
1. A method comprising:
at a device having a display, one or more processors, and non-transitory memory;
(Tran [0006]: “the system comprises a personal mobile computing device that stores authentication information, a display device, and a remote server. The display device includes a device memory that stores device computer instructions and a device processor”.)
obtaining a user location in a first three-dimensional coordinate system of a first environment;
(Tran [0005]: “The multi-dimensional fabric stores content using time and location coordinates”
Tran [0006]: “display a multi-dimensional fabric user interface in an Augmented Reality virtual environment that represents a first actual physical location to the user of the personal mobile computing device”.)
Tran alone does not explicitly teach the remaining claim limitations.
However, Tran in combination with Miranda teaches the claimed:
obtaining an interest location in a second three-dimensional coordinate system of a second environment, different and distinct from the first three-dimensional coordinate system of the first environment;
(Tran [0007]: “provide the multi-dimensional fabric user interface to the display device … enable the user to create a portal in the virtual representation of the first actual physical location that facilitates travel to a virtual representation of a second actual physical location in the multi-dimensional fabric user interface”.
Miranda [0103]: “an XR system may assign a local coordinate frame to a virtual content, as opposed to attaching the virtual content in a world coordinate frame. Such configuration enables a virtual content to be attached to a more persistent frame position such as a persistent coordinate frame (PCF).”
Tran teaches the virtual representation of the second location, which corresponds to the interest location, while Miranda teaches the local coordinate system that is different from the world coordinate system, which is the first coordinate system that represents the real world environment; thus, using the local coordinate system of Miranda, Tran can obtain the interest location based on that local coordinate system .)
transforming the interest location to a transformed interest location in the first three- dimensional coordinate system;
(Tran [0005]: “virtual environment using a multi-dimensional fabric that stores content to be viewed within the virtual environment by a user. The multi-dimensional fabric stores content using time and location coordinates, which can be accessed in the virtual environment.”
Tran [0007]: “select the multi-dimensional fabric user interface that is specific for the user based on the valid authentication of the personal mobile computing device … manipulate the multi-dimensional fabric user interface based on received input from the user”
Tran [0088]: “For example, the portal 1110 can be anchored to a specific location and time within a multi-dimensional fabric described herein (e.g., the virtual representation of the first actual physical location 1120). In this same manner, the user 1150 may anchor the other side of the portal 1110 to another specific location and time within a multi-dimensional fabric described herein (e.g., the virtual representation of a second actual physical location 1140).”
Miranda [0135]: “the local coordinate frame associated with the XR content 28 may define a position and rotation of the virtual content (e.g. may provide a node and facing direction), which may then be transformed to a local and/or world coordinate frame and/or PCF when the virtual content is placed in the real world so the virtual content may be viewed by the user.”
Tran teaches that anchoring the other side of the portal to a specific location transforms the second location into the coordinate system of the first, which indicates that the second location is in the first location’s 3D coordinate system. Further, Miranda teaches the local coordinate system that can be transformed to a world coordinate frame in order to display the virtual content to the user.)
determining a portal location in the first three-dimensional coordinate system based on the user location and the transformed interest location; and
(Tran [0088]: “the portal 1110 can be anchored to a specific location and time within a multi-dimensional fabric described herein (e.g., the virtual representation of the first actual physical location 1120). In this same manner, the user 1150 may anchor the other side of the portal 1110 to another specific location and time within a multi-dimensional fabric described herein (e.g., the virtual representation of a second actual physical location 1140).”
Tran teaches the portal being anchored from the first side to the virtual representation of the first physical location, this is the user location, and anchoring the other side of the portal to a virtual representation of the second physical location, which is the transformed interest location. Therefore, since the portal location is determined, firstly, by anchoring to the first physical location, it would use the coordinate positions of the first coordinate system, which is based on the user location and the transformed interest location.)
displaying, on the display at the portal location, a portal corresponding to at least a partial view of the second environment.
(Tran [0007]: “provide the multi-dimensional fabric user interface to the display device”
Tran [0008]: “enable the user to look through the first location side of the portal and see the virtual representation of the second actual physical location in the multi-dimensional fabric user interface from the virtual representation of the first actual physical location in the multi-dimensional fabric user interface.”
Tran [0037]: “FIG. 12 illustrates a multi-dimensional fabric user interface in an augmented reality system that displays the portal in a virtual representation of the first actual physical location through the personal mobile computing device, wherein a virtual representation of a second actual physical location is viewable through the portal”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the orientation of the portal as taught by Miranda with the system of Tran in order to separately represent each environment and model and manipulate them independently, allowing for accurate mapping between virtual and corresponding physical locations while accommodating for differences between the two environments.
As per claims 17 and 20, this claim is similar in scope to limitations recited in claim 1 and thus is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 2, Tran teaches the claimed:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first environment is a physical environment and the second environment is a virtual environment.
(Tran [0005]: “the user to create a portal in the virtual representation of the first actual physical location … to a virtual representation of a second actual physical location in the multi-dimensional fabric user interface.”)
As per claim 18, this claim is similar in scope to limitations recited in claim 2, and thus is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 3, Tran teaches the claimed:
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the interest location is a location of a static object in the second environment.
(Tran [0088]: “the portal 1110 can be anchored to a specific location and time within a multi-dimensional fabric described herein (e.g., the virtual representation of the first actual physical location 1120).”
Tran [0010]: “the virtual objects include stores, restaurants, vendors, offices, buildings, parking lots, parks, and the like.”
Tran [0091]: “the virtual objects are selected based on their storage location and time in the multi-dimensional fabric and the corresponding location and time of the virtual representation of the second actual physical location 1140.”)
As per claim 4, Tran teaches the claimed:
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the interest location is a location of a dynamic object in the second environment.
(Tran [0090]: “the augmented reality system enables the user to look through the first location side of the portal 1110, as shown in FIG. 12, and see other users (not shown) in the virtual representation of the second actual physical location 1140 in the multi-dimensional fabric user interface. These other users could get to that virtual representation of the second actual physical location 1140 in this same manner, by creating a portal and anchoring the other side of the portal 1110 to the virtual representation of the second actual physical location 1140).”
Tran teaches the other users, which can correspond to dynamic objects since they are able to move within the virtual environment, that are able to create and anchor portals to places where other users are. Therefore, the interest location can be where there are dynamic objects.)
As per claim 16, Tran and Miranda teach the claimed:
16. The method of claim 1, further including:
obtaining an updated interest location in the second three-dimensional coordinate system;
(Miranda [0187]: “the placement of virtual content, such as Content 456 and Content 123 will be relative to the closest updated anchors/PCFs in the updated Map 2 . The virtual content appears in the same real-world location relative to the user, despite the changed PCF attachment for the content, and despite the updated anchors for Map 2 .”
Tran [0097]: “the augmented reality system enables the user 1150 to create a portal 1110 in the virtual representation of the first actual physical location 1120 at a first date and time that facilitates virtual travel to a virtual representation of a second actual physical location 1140 at a second date and time in the multi-dimensional fabric user interface.”
Miranda teaches the updating of the virtual content on the coordinate frame that appears in the same real world location, indicating the difference between the two coordinate system, and additionally Tran further teaches that the destination or the updated interest location can be changed to a different time or date.)
transforming the updated interest location to an updated transformed interest location in the first three-dimensional coordinate system;
(Tran [0005]: “virtual environment using a multi-dimensional fabric that stores content to be viewed within the virtual environment by a user. The multi-dimensional fabric stores content using time and location coordinates, which can be accessed in the virtual environment.”
Tran [0007]: “select the multi-dimensional fabric user interface that is specific for the user based on the valid authentication of the personal mobile computing device … manipulate the multi-dimensional fabric user interface based on received input from the user”
Tran [0088]: “For example, the portal 1110 can be anchored to a specific location and time within a multi-dimensional fabric described herein (e.g., the virtual representation of the first actual physical location 1120). In this same manner, the user 1150 may anchor the other side of the portal 1110 to another specific location and time within a multi-dimensional fabric described herein (e.g., the virtual representation of a second actual physical location 1140).”
Tran teaches that anchoring the other side of the portal to a specific location transforms the second location into the coordinate system of the first, which indicates that the second location is in the first location’s 3D coordinate system. Once the updated interest location is determined, the process of transforming the interest location will occur again, and thus the process is similar to what is recited in claim 1.)
determining an updated portal location in the first three-dimensional coordinate system based on the user location and the updated transformed interest location; and
(Tran [0088]: “the portal 1110 can be anchored to a specific location and time within a multi-dimensional fabric described herein (e.g., the virtual representation of the first actual physical location 1120). In this same manner, the user 1150 may anchor the other side of the portal 1110 to another specific location and time within a multi-dimensional fabric described herein (e.g., the virtual representation of a second actual physical location 1140).”
Tran teaches the portal being anchored from the first side to the virtual representation of the first physical location, this is the user location, and anchoring the other side of the portal to a virtual representation of the second physical location, which is the transformed interest location. Therefore, since the portal location is determined, firstly, by anchoring to the first physical location, it would use the coordinate positions of the first coordinate system, which is based on the user location and the transformed interest location. Therefore, since this anchoring occurs with the updated transformed interest location, the portal location will also be updated, determining an updated portal location.)
displaying, on the display at the updated portal location, the portal.
(Tran [0037]: “FIG. 12 illustrates a multi-dimensional fabric user interface in an augmented reality system that displays the portal in a virtual representation of the first actual physical location through the personal mobile computing device, wherein a virtual representation of a second actual physical location is viewable through the portal”
Similar to the claim limitation above, since there is an updated portal location, the system will display the portal at the newly updated location.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the orientation of the portal as taught by Miranda with the system of Tran in order to separately represent each environment and model and manipulate them independently, allowing for accurate mapping between virtual and corresponding physical locations while accommodating for differences between the two environments.
Claims 5 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran in view of Miranda and in further view of Cartwright (US 20190385368 A1).
As per claim 5, Tran and Miranda alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Tran and Miranda in combination with Cartwright teaches the claimed:
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the interest location is a gaze point of a user.
(Cartwright [0026]: “The processor 107 may further be in communication with a communication device 106, including a wired or wireless communication device, that communicates with one or more input devices 109 that allow a user to interact with the virtual environment presented by the HMD 101. … In some examples … a gaze-tracking device such as an eye-tracking or head-tracking device”.
Cartwright teaches that a user gaze can be obtained and used as an interest location as it is able to communicate with the HMD as input.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the gaze tracking as taught by Cartwright with the system of Tran in order to improve interaction and enable hand free controls and adapt virtual content to users in virtual environments.
As per claim 11, Tran and Miranda alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Tran and Miranda in combination with Cartwright teaches the claimed:
11. The method of claim 1, further including determining a portal orientation in the first three-dimensional coordinate system based on the user location and the transformed interest location.
(Cartwright [0041]: “In some embodiments, the position of the passthrough portal 234 is fixed relative to the physical environment, while the orientation of the passthrough portal 234 is relative to the POV of the HMD 201.”
Cartwright teaches the orientation of the portal is determined by the point of view (user location) of the head mounted device looking at the passthrough portal (transformed interest location), where the portal is fixed relative to the physical environment, which is the first 3D coordinate system.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the orientation of the portal as taught by Cartwright with the system of Tran in order for easier user navigation and immersion in the virtual environment, by ensuring correct spatial continuity and accurate rendering of virtual views.
As per claim 12, Tran and Miranda alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Tran and Miranda in combination with Cartwright teaches the claimed:
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the portal orientation is perpendicular to a line segment between the user location and the transformed interest location.
(Cartwright [0041]: “For example, a centerpoint of the passthrough portal 234 may remain in a fixed position relative to the physical environment while the passthrough portal 234 is oriented normal to a ray cast from the POV of the HMD 201 in the virtual environment 218.”
Cartwright teaches the portal orientation that is normal, or perpendicular, to a ray (line segment) from the user’s point of view to the portal.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the perpendicular orientation of the portal as taught by Cartwright with the system of Tran in order for easier user navigation and immersion in the virtual environment, by ensuring correct spatial continuity and accurate rendering of virtual views, and to align the real world motion with the virtual environment to maximize real physical space interaction.
As per claim 13, Tran and Miranda alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Tran and Miranda in combination with Cartwright teaches the claimed:
13. The method of claim 1, further including determining a portal size based on the user location and the transformed interest location.
(Cartwright [0041]: “the position of the passthrough portal 234 is fixed relative to the physical environment, while the size of the passthrough portal 234 is relative to the POV of the HMD 201. For example, a centerpoint of the passthrough portal 234 may remain in a fixed position relative to the physical environment while the passthrough portal 234 is scaled relative to a distance from the POV of the HMD 201 to the passthrough portal 234 in the virtual environment 218.”
Cartwright [0042]: “a user can resize and/or reshape the passthrough portal 334 with the input device 309 to present a video feed 336 of only the desired portion”.
Cartwright teaches the scaling of the portal size based on a distance of the user from the portal and that the user can resize the portal to show only what they want to see of the interest location.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the scaling size of the portal as taught by Cartwright with the system of Tran in order to enhance spatial awareness and interaction efficiency for perspective and visual proportions and spatial orientation and navigation.
As per claim 14, Tran and Miranda alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Tran and Miranda in combination with Cartwright teaches the claimed:
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the portal size is based on a distance between the user location and the portal location.
(Cartwright [0041]: “the position of the passthrough portal 234 is fixed relative to the physical environment, while the size of the passthrough portal 234 is relative to the POV of the HMD 201. For example, a centerpoint of the passthrough portal 234 may remain in a fixed position relative to the physical environment while the passthrough portal 234 is scaled relative to a distance from the POV of the HMD 201 to the passthrough portal 234 in the virtual environment 218.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the scaling size of the portal as taught by Cartwright with the system of Tran in order to enhance spatial awareness and interaction efficiency for perspective and visual proportions and spatial orientation and navigation.
Claims 6-9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran and in view of Miranda and in further view of Carpenter (JP 2009532784 A).
As per claim 6, Tran and Miranda alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Tran and Miranda in combination with Carpenter teaches the claimed:
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the portal location is a point of a line segment between the user location and the transformed interest location.
(Carpenter (page 8, line 14-18): “A line trace 223 is directed from the designated viewpoint 225 to the painted sign 209. … the intersection 228 of the line trace 223 at the point 227 in question and the three-dimensional polygon 219 is determined.”
Carpenter teaches a line segment between a user viewpoint and the interest location, in the example in the passage above, a painted sign. Carpenter then teaches the determination of the point along that line segment
Tran [0088]: “the portal 1110 can be anchored to a specific location and time … the user 1150 may anchor the other side of the portal 1110 to another specific location and time”
Tran teaches that the user can anchor the portal to a specific location, and the other side of the portal as well, to another location. The portal is a bridge between where the user is and the second location, the transformed interest location, which is along a path or line connecting them.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the line tracing as taught by Carpenter with the system of Tran in order to determine the points or coordinates in question and efficiently identify and support real time virtual interactions.
As per claim 19, this claim is similar in scope to limitations recited in claim 6, and thus is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 7, Tran and Miranda alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Tran and Miranda in combination with Carpenter teaches the claimed:
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the portal location is a point of the line segment that is a predetermined distance from the user location.
(Carpenter (page 8, line 14-18): “A line trace 223 is directed from the designated viewpoint 225 to the painted sign 209. … the intersection 228 of the line trace 223 at the point 227 in question and the three-dimensional polygon 219 is determined.”
Carpenter (page 11, line 10-11): “The distance between the first point 227 in question and the second point 227 in question is calculated, for example, by determining differences in latitude, longitude and altitude”
Carpenter teaches establishing a line segment between a viewpoint (user location) and an interest point or location and being able to determine points along the line segment. The intersection point represents a point along the line segment that is at a distance that is determinable from the user viewpoint. One would be able to recognize that once a line segment is established and the distances are calculable, being able to select a point at a specific predetermined distance from the user along the line is a simple mathematical operation. Thus, using the method of Carpenter to determine and place portal locations from the user viewpoint would be obvious.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the line-based positioning as taught by Carpenter with the system of Tran in order to place any object at a predetermined distance from the user along a line segment.
As per claim 8, Tran and Miranda alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Tran and Miranda in combination with Carpenter teaches the claimed:
8. The method of claim 6, wherein the portal location is a point of the line segment that is a predetermined distance from the transformed interest location.
(Carpenter (page 8, line 14-18): “A line trace 223 is directed from the designated viewpoint 225 to the painted sign 209. … the intersection 228 of the line trace 223 at the point 227 in question and the three-dimensional polygon 219 is determined.”
Carpenter (page 11, line 10-11): “The distance between the first point 227 in question and the second point 227 in question is calculated, for example, by determining differences in latitude, longitude and altitude”
Similar to claim 7, Carpenter teaches establishing a line segment between a viewpoint (user location) and an interest point or location and being able to determine points along the line segment. The intersection point represents a point along the line segment that is at a distance that is determinable from the user viewpoint. The distance from the interest point or location to any point along the line segment is calculable as the inverse of the distance from the user viewpoint. One would be able to recognize that once a line segment is established and the distances are calculable, being able to select a point at a specific predetermined distance from the user along the line, and then taking the inverse, is a simple mathematical operation. Thus, using the method of Carpenter to determine and place portal locations from the interest location would be obvious.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the line-based positioning as taught by Carpenter with the system of Tran in order to place any object at a predetermined distance from the interest point or location along a line segment.
As per claim 9, Tran and Miranda alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Tran and Miranda in combination with Carpenter teaches the claimed:
9. The method of claim 6, wherein the portal location is a point of the line segment that is a distance from the user location that is a predetermined percentage of a distance between the user location and the transformed interest location.
(Carpenter (page 8, line 14-18): “A line trace 223 is directed from the designated viewpoint 225 to the painted sign 209. … the intersection 228 of the line trace 223 at the point 227 in question and the three-dimensional polygon 219 is determined.”
Carpenter (page 11, line 10-11): “The distance between the first point 227 in question and the second point 227 in question is calculated, for example, by determining differences in latitude, longitude and altitude”
Carpenter teaches establishing a line segment between a viewpoint (user location) and an interest point or location and being able to determine points along the line segment. Carpenter also teaches that a distance can be calculated between two points, where the two points can be the user viewpoint and the interest point or location, which would be the total distance. One would be able to recognize that once the total distance is known, the location of a point at any percentage of that total distance can be mathematically determined. Thus, using the method of Carpenter to determine and place portal locations from a percentage of the total distance would be obvious.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the line-based positioning as taught by Carpenter with the system of Tran in order to place any object at a percentage distance between an user location and an interest location along a line segment.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran in view of Miranda in view of Cartwright and in further view of Gipson (US 20130141428 A1).
As per claim 15, Tran and Miranda alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Tran and Miranda in combination with Cartwright and Gipson teaches the claimed:
15. The method of claim 1, further including:
obtaining an updated user location in the first three-dimensional coordinate system;
(Cartwright [0038]: “one or more sensors may detect movement of the HMD in the physical environment, and the perspective of the virtual environment provided to the user in the HMD may update to simulate movement in the virtual environment based on the movement in the physical environment.”)
determining an updated portal location in the first three-dimensional coordinate system based on the updated user location and the transformed interest location; and
(Gipson [0122]: “The application checks 1506 to see if the screen needs updating such as, for example, based on a change in the user's position, orientation, or if the screen is marked for update by other screen changes. The application updates the screen if it needs updating, then may check to see if any user events have occurred, and may process 1508 the user events, if any. If the user's position or orientation has changed or update was marked since the last tick, the application begins a process for updating the screen.”
Gipson [0134]: “once a portal splice has been established, the screen-composition layer merges all of the zones seamlessly into one large virtual reality spatial area.”
Gipson teaches the constant update of the screen based on a change in user’s position, where the screen incorporates the portal. Thus, every time the screen updates based on the user’s position; the portal location will update as well.)
displaying, on the display at the updated portal location, the portal.
(Tran [0037]: “FIG. 12 illustrates a multi-dimensional fabric user interface in an augmented reality system that displays the portal in a virtual representation of the first actual physical location through the personal mobile computing device, wherein a virtual representation of a second actual physical location is viewable through the portal”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sensors to detect movement as taught by Cartwright with the system of Tran in order to update and simulate virtual movements based on the movements made in the physical real world. Also to use the application check for screen updates as taught by Gipson with the system of Tran in order to update the application or interface based on changes made by the user, whether it be location or orientation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA SUO whose telephone number is (571) 272-8387. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Daniel Hajnik can be reached on (571) 272-7642. 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.
/JOSHUA SUO/Examiner, Art Unit 2616
/DANIEL F HAJNIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights