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 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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “at least one imaging device installed based on a distance between the one or more sensors, the one or more targets, and the FOV of the one or more sensors”, which is indefinite. It is unclear what distance is being used as the basis for the imaging device installation. For example, is it a single distance involving all three elements or multiple distances between various combination of these elements. Furthermore, with regard to the phrase “distance between… and the FOV”, it unclear what point would be used for measuring a distance to the FOV, as a FOV is a geometric concept defined by an angular extent rather than a physical point or object from which a distance can be meaningfully determined. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope of the imaging device installation with respect to distance as required by the claim. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted to mean the imaging device is installed based on a distance measured between any of the three elements.
Claim 8 recites “wherein at least one accelerometer is configured to determine change in the one or more coordinates of the one or more sensors…”, which lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if the element “the one or more coordinates of the one or more sensors” is meant to refer to the previously recited “the one or more coordinates of each of the one or more real time images” of claim 7, or if it is meant to introduce a new element. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope of the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as if introducing a new element, such as “wherein at least one accelerometer is configured to determine change in one or more coordinates of the one or more sensors…”.
Claim 18 contains limitations found similar to that of claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 11 recites “wherein for a determination of obstacle information, the plurality of IR channels are masked based on the criticality level.”, which lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear what the element “the plurality of IR channels” is meant to refer to as claims 1, 3, and 4, of which claim 11 depends on, does not introduce this element. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope of the claim. For examination purposes, claim 11 will be interpreted as if dependent from claim 5 to establish proper antecedent basis for the element.
Claim 2-7, 9-10, 12-13, and 19 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 12-16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of comparing and analyzing image data to determine misalignment or obstacle information, without significantly more
The claim recites: “A system comprising: one or more sensors configured to detect one or more targets within a field of view (FOV) of the one or more sensors; at least one imaging device installed based on a distance between the one or more sensors, the one or more targets, and the FOV of the one or more sensors, wherein the at least one imaging device is configured to capture one or more real time images of the one or more targets within the FOV; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more sensors and the at least one imaging device, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive the one or more real time images from the at least one imaging device; compare the one or more real time images with at least one reference image; and determine a misalignment information, obstacle information, or misalignment and obstacle information within the FOV based at least on the comparison.”
The limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the human mind. A person can visually detect targets within a field of view using their senses, mentally compare observed images with references, and determine misalignment or obstacle information based on that comparison. These steps correspond to cognitive processes that can be performed entirely in the human mind.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. For example, the claim
recites the additional elements, “at least one imaging device installed based on a distance between the one or more sensors, the one or more targets, and the FOV of the one or more sensors, wherein the at least one imaging device is configured to capture one or more real time images of the one or more targets within the FOV” and “one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more sensors and the at least one imaging device”. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to generic computer components, configured in a generic way (“installed based on a distance between…”, “communicatively coupled to…”) to perform generic computer functions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial expectation. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality. It is therefore a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application, and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is rejected is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim recites additional elements recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to merely implementing the abstract idea using generic sensors. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a further limitation of the same abstract idea identified in the analysis of claim 1. For example, the person can mentally identify zones corresponding to observed pixels in the FOV. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a further limitation of the same abstract idea identified in the analysis of claim 1. For example, the person can mentally assign criticality levels to identified zones in the FOV. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a further limitation of the same abstract idea identified in the analysis of claim 1. For example, the person can mentally compare consecutive images, such as by comparing corresponding coordinates. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim recites additional elements recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to merely implementing the abstract idea using a generic sensor. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a further limitation of the same abstract idea identified in the analysis of claim 1. For example, the person can mentally assign criticality levels to identified zones in the FOV which include zones in which misalignment and/or obstacle is not to be detected, in which misalignment and/or obstacle is detected, and in which misalignment or obstacle is to be detected. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 is rejected is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim recites additional elements recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to merely implementing the abstract idea using a generic camera configuration. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim recites additional elements which amount to mere insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, outputting a notification to a user corresponds to well-understood and conventional data outputting. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 contains limitations found analogous to that of claim 1. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claims 15, 16, 18, and 19 contain limitations found analogous to that of claims 3, 4, 7, and 8, respectively. Therefore, claims 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 3, 4, 7, and 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 12-13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hermann (US 20210287524 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hermann teaches a system comprising:
one or more sensors configured to detect one or more targets within a field of view (FOV) of the one or more sensors (Hermann, pg. 2, paragraphs 0030-0031, “Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, a flame detector system 10 is shown. The flame detector system 10 includes a flame detector 20, a plurality of targets 22 that are provided to verify optical alignment and/or field of view integrity of the flame detector 20, and a controller 24. The flame detector 20 faces towards an external environment 26 and is arranged to detect a flame within the external environment 26. The flame detector 20 includes a housing 30, a plurality of flame sensors 32, an imaging device 34, and an output device 36.”, pg. 2, paragraph 0034, lines 7-12, “The plurality of flame sensors 32 may have or may define a field of view 50. The field of view 50 is an area, such as a detection area, within which the flame sensors 32 of the flame detector 20 may reliably detect the presence of a flame.”);
at least one imaging device installed based on a distance between the one or more sensors, the one or more targets, and the FOV of the one or more sensors, wherein the at least one imaging device is configured to capture one or more real time images of the one or more targets within the FOV (Hermann, pg. 2, paragraph 0036, lines 1-8, “Referring to FIGS . 1 and 2 , the imaging device 34 is disposed on the substrate 44 such that the imaging device 34 is disposed coplanar with the flame sensors 32. The imaging device 34 is positioned to be generally coaxial with at least one flame sensor of the plurality of flame sensors 32 so as to provide the imaging device 34 with an optical field of view or an optical view 70 that correlates to the field of view 50 of the flame sensors 32.”, pg. 3, paragraph 0037, lines 1-6, “The imaging device 34 may be an optical camera, video camera , video imaging device or other device capable of taking or capturing an image ( e.g. visible imaging or IR imaging ) of the external environment 26 that corresponds to the overall field of view 50 of the flame sensors 32 or the detection coverage area of the flame detector 20.”, see Fig. 2, imaging device 34, flame sensor 32, and plurality of targets 22, The imaging device is installed at a fixed coplanar position with respect to the flame sensor. Thus, these components share a common distance from targets in the FOV and are used to collect real time data of the environment for observation.); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more sensors and the at least one imaging device (Hermann, pg. 3, paragraph 0042, “The controller 24 includes output communication channels that are arranged to provide data, signals, information, commands or the like to the flame sensors 32, the imaging device 34 , and the output device 36. The controller 24 includes at least one processor that is arranged or programmed to perform a method of optical alignment and verification of the field of view integrity for the flame detector 20 based on inputs received from the imaging device 34.”), wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
receive the one or more real time images from the at least one imaging device; compare the one or more real time images with at least one reference image; and determine a misalignment information, obstacle information, or misalignment and obstacle information within the FOV based at least on the comparison (Hermann, pg. 3, paragraph 0043, lines 1-23, “Referring to FIG. 5 , with continued references to FIGS. 1-4 , a method of optical alignment and field of view integrity verification for the flame detector 20 may be performed. The method enables the controller 24 to determine if the flame detector 20 is properly aligned with the initial detection coverage area (e.g. optical alignment) or if an obstruction 60 is present within the field of view 50 of the flame detector 20 (e.g. field of view integrity) through use of the imaging device 34. At block 100, the flame detector 20 is aligned or oriented towards a desired field of view. The aligning of the flame detector 20 towards the desired field of view may be based on image data (e.g. first image or reference image) captured by or provided by the imaging device 34 of the external environment 26 containing the plurality of targets 22, such that the desired field of view correlates to the optical view 70 of the imaging device 34. At block 102, the controller 24 is programmed to identify and/or locate the plurality of targets 22 within the optical view 70 that correlates to the field of view 50. At block 104, the reference image (e.g. first image) as well as the location of the plurality of targets 22 within the external environment 26 are stored within memory or storage means within or in communication with the controller 24.”, pgs. 3 and 4, paragraphs 0044-0046, “At block 106 , the controller 24 is programmed to command or operate the imaging device 34 to capture a second image or real-time image of the external environment 26 containing the plurality of targets 22... The second image is provided to the buffer to facilitate the comparison of the first image to the second image... Returning to block 108 , if the controller 24 recognizes any target of the plurality of targets 22 within the second image, an optical image comparison between the second image and the first image may be performed by overlaying the first image and the second image or performing other image comparison methods. The controller 24 is programmed to compare the most recent location/position or the real-time location position 82 of the plurality of targets 22 of the second image to the stored position/location 80 of the plurality of targets 22 of the first image . A positional difference may be determined between each target of the plurality of targets 22 present within the first image and a corresponding image of each target of the plurality of targets 22 present within the second image. The positional difference enables a determination of proper alignment of the flame detector 20 with the initial detection coverage area.”, see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 2, Hermann teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors are one or more infrared (IR) sensors, flame sensors, or photodiodes (Hermann, pg. 2, paragraph 0031, lines 3-5, “The flame detector 20 includes a housing 30 , a plurality of flame sensors 32, an imaging device 34 , and an output device 36.”, pg. 2, paragraph 0034, lines 3-7, “The plurality of flame sensors 32 may be infrared sensors, IR pyroelectrics, ultraviolet sensors, combinations of the aforementioned sensors or other sensors capable of detecting the presence of a flame within the external environment 26.”).
Regarding claim 12, Hermann teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors and the at least one imaging device are spatially calibrated to maintain same or similar FOV (Hermann, pg. 2, paragraph 0036, lines 1-13, “Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, the imaging device 34 is disposed on the substrate 44 such that the imaging device 34 is disposed coplanar with the flame sensors 32. The imaging device 34 is positioned to be generally coaxial with at least one flame sensor of the plurality of flame sensors 32 so as to provide the imaging device 34 with an optical field of view or an optical view 70 that correlates to the field of view 50 of the flame sensors 32. Correlation between the field of view 50 and the optical view 70 ensures that the view of the imaging device 34 (e.g. optical view) and the view of the flame sensors 32 (e.g. field of view 50) correspond such that they substantially overlap and provide generally co-extensive coverage.”).
Regarding claim 13, Hermann teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to send one or more notifications, via a communication device, to a user or a remote server based at least on the determined misalignment information, obstacle information, or misalignment and obstacle information within the FOV (Hermann, pg. 4, paragraph 0048, lines 1-12, “At block 120 , the method determines if the positional difference is greater than a threshold positional difference between the stored position / location 80 of a target within the first image and the real-time location/position 82 of a corresponding second image of the same target within the second image. Should the positional difference (as shown in FIG . 4 as 80 and 82) be greater than the threshold positional difference, the method continues to block 122. At block 122, the method outputs a first advisory fault for display via the output device 36. The first advisory fault may be indicative of an alignment error of the flame detector 20 relative to the initial detection coverage area.”).
Claim 14 corresponds to claim 1, reciting a method for performing the steps according to claim 1. Hermann teaches a method for performing the steps according to claim 1 (Hermann, see Fig. 5). As indicated in the analysis of claim 1, Hermann teaches all the limitations according to claim 1. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
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.
Claims 3, 4, 9, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann (US 20210287524 A1) in view of Hamaishi et al. (JP 2007011776 A), (hereinafter Hamaishi).
Regarding claim 3, Hermann teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the FOV comprises an array of pixels (Hermann, pg. 3, paragraph 0037).
Hermann does not teach wherein each pixel of the array of pixels is associated with a corresponding one or more zones defined by a user.
However, Hamaishi teaches wherein each pixel of the array of pixels is associated with a corresponding one or more zones defined by a user (Hamaishi, pgs. 12 and 13, lines 34-40 and 1-10, respectively, “In the present embodiment, the attribute information is acquired from the user for all the designated areas… For example, the user designates an image designated point only for a designated area that is set as the priority monitoring range (first range), and a space that is closer than the predetermined distance R1 from the designated area that becomes the priority monitoring range (first range) in step S16. A designated area to be a general monitoring range (second range) is set, and a space that is a predetermined distance R1 or more away from the designated area to be a priority monitoring range (first range) and closer to the distance R2 is a general non-monitoring range (third Range), and a space that is a predetermined distance R2 or more away from the designated area that is the priority monitoring range (first range) can be the designated area that is the priority non-monitoring range (fourth range).”).
Hermann teaches a flame detection system which captures real-time images of a field of view to determine misalignment and obstacle information by comparing these images to a stored reference image (Hermann, pgs. 3 and 4, paragraphs 0043-000046, see Fig. 5). Hermann does not teach user-defined zones within that field of view. Hamaishi teaches a monitoring system which allows users to define priority ranges for monitoring designation areas in an image (see above). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system of Hermann to include user-defined priority zones as taught by Hamaishi (Hamaishi, pgs. 12 and 13, lines 34-40 and 1-10, respectively). The motivation for doing so would have been to focus processing resources on priority zones rather than the entire field of view, thereby reducing computational load of the system. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Hermann with Hamaishi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Hermann in view of Hamaishi teaches the system of claim 3, wherein each of the corresponding one or more zones are further defined with a criticality level, wherein the criticality level of each respective zone is one of non-critical, critical, or highly critical (Hamaishi, pgs. 12 and 13, lines 34-40 and 1-10, respectively, “In the present embodiment, the attribute information is acquired from the user for all the designated areas… For example, the user designates an image designated point only for a designated area that is set as the priority monitoring range (first range), and a space that is closer than the predetermined distance R1 from the designated area that becomes the priority monitoring range (first range) in step S16. A designated area to be a general monitoring range (second range) is set, and a space that is a predetermined distance R1 or more away from the designated area to be a priority monitoring range (first range) and closer to the distance R2 is a general non-monitoring range (third Range), and a space that is a predetermined distance R2 or more away from the designated area that is the priority monitoring range (first range) can be the designated area that is the priority non-monitoring range (fourth range).”, The user designates areas with different priority levels, including priority monitoring (highly critical), general monitoring (critical), and non-monitoring range (non-critical).).
Regarding claim 9, Hermann in view of Hamaishi teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the non-critical zone corresponds to a zone in which misalignment and/or obstacle is not to be detected, highly critical zone corresponds to a zone in which misalignment and/or obstacle is detected, and a critical zone corresponds to a zone in which misalignment or obstacle is to be detected (Hamaishi, pgs. 12 and 13, lines 34-40 and 1-10, respectively, “In the present embodiment, the attribute information is acquired from the user for all the designated areas… For example, the user designates an image designated point only for a designated area that is set as the priority monitoring range (first range), and a space that is closer than the predetermined distance R1 from the designated area that becomes the priority monitoring range (first range) in step S16. A designated area to be a general monitoring range (second range) is set, and a space that is a predetermined distance R1 or more away from the designated area to be a priority monitoring range (first range) and closer to the distance R2 is a general non-monitoring range (third Range), and a space that is a predetermined distance R2 or more away from the designated area that is the priority monitoring range (first range) can be the designated area that is the priority non-monitoring range (fourth range).”).
Claims 15 and 16 corresponds to claim 3 and 4, respectively, reciting a method for performing the steps according to claims 3 and 4. Hermann in view of Hamaishi teaches a method for performing the steps according to claims 3 and 4 (Hermann, see Fig. 5). As indicated in the analysis of claims 3 and 4, Hermann in view of Hamaishi teaches all the limitations according to claims 3 and 4. Therefore, claims 15 and 16 are rejected for the same reason as claims 3 and 4.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann (US 20210287524 A1) in view of Ohira et al (US 20190139229 A1), (hereinafter Ohira).
Regarding claim 7, Hermann teaches the system of claim 1. Hermann does not teach wherein the at least one reference image is being obtained by comparing at least two consecutive real time images from the one or more real time images based at least on one or more coordinates of each of the one or more real time images.
However, Ohira teaches wherein the at least one reference image is being obtained by comparing at least two consecutive real time images from the one or more real time images based at least on one or more coordinates of each of the one or more real time images (Ohira, pg. 3, paragraph 0048, “The object-tracker 112 compares the positions of target objects detected in each frame between a plurality of frames consecutive in a time-series manner, determines that these target objects are the same object in a case where a distance (distance on an image plane) between the positions which are targets for comparison is less than a predetermined distance, and determines that these target objects are different from each other object in a case where a distance between the positions of the target objects which are targets for comparison is equal to or greater than the predetermined distance”).
Hermann teaches obtaining reference images for comparison with real-time images in response to detecting targets in a frame of captured video (Hermann, pg. 4, paragraph 0046). Hermann does not teach comparing consecutive frames to obtain the reference image. Ohira teaches comparing the position of targets across consecutive frames to track object movement (see above). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the target detection of Hermann to include consecutive frame comparison as taught by Ohira (Ohira, pg. 3, paragraph 0048). The motivation for doing so would have been to apply reference image comparison only on relevant target position changes, thereby improving efficiency of the system. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Hermann with Ohira to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Claim 18 corresponds to claim 7, reciting a method for performing the steps according to claim 7. Hermann in view of Ohira teaches a method for performing the steps according to claim 7 (Hermann, see Fig. 5). As indicated in the analysis of claim 7, Hermann in view of Ohira teaches all the limitations according to claim 7. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 10, 11, 17, and 20 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.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. These claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the above rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mallery et al. (EP4116702B1) teaches an infrared imaging system with multiple optical channels that processes images by applying masks to detect window obscuration.
Nichani et al. (US6829371B1) teaches collecting simultaneous images from different IR light channels and comparing them to distinguish between shadows and object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR LEVI HANSEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 (ET).
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/CONNOR L HANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
