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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2024-0104873, filed on 08/06/2024.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/982,677 (reference application) in view of Andersen et al. (hereinafter Andersen) (US 8606606 B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims recite an obvious variation of the same content translation system recited in the reference application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The instant application claims a translation workflow including transmitting a translation target manuscript for an episode to a translation server, providing the manuscript to a first terminal, receiving translated language, generating a translation file providing the translation file to a second terminal, and receiving a translated image file. The reference application claims receiving an image file of a translation target related to an episode, providing a translation editor so that a translated episode is generated, receiving, translated language through an input window, generating a translation file, and using management/translation servers for the image file translation process. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter are obvious variants of one another and are not patentably distinct as shown below
Instant Application: 18/981,077
Reference Application: 18/982,677
Claim 1: A method of performing content translation, comprising:
Transmitting, by a management server, a translation target manuscript for an episode of content created based on a first language to a translation server;
Providing, by the translation server, the translation target manuscript to a first terminal, and receiving, from the first terminal, translated language corresponding to a second language, where the second language is different from the first language;
Generating, by the translation server, a translation file for the translation target manuscript using the received translated language;
Providing, by the translation server, the translation file to a second terminal; and
Receiving, from the second terminal, an image file corresponding to the episode, which is translated into the second language using the translation file.
Claim 2: generating, by an authority server, a work group, the authority server assigning an operator account of the management server, wherein the content and the episode are generated based on the work group in the operator account.
Claim 3: activating a setting function for setting language types of the first language and the second language in the operator account
Claim 4: wherein a manager is registered to designate at least one user account of the first terminal and the second terminal through the setting function
Claim 5: episode information on the episode interworks between the management server and the translation server.
Claim 6: replacing the translation target manuscript based on whether translated language is received.
Claim 7: providing a comparison window for comparing the episode and translated language
Claim 8: editing review or proofreading review using a message.
Claim 9: image file is a lettered file in which characters of the episode have been changed to the second language.
Claim 10: reviewing the lettered file and transmitting a review message to the second terminal.
Claim 11: file format type of the translation target manuscript is changed to another format type
Claim 12: changing the file format into a low-capacity format and providing it to the first terminal
Claim 13: translation target manuscript is set as an image file of a different format between the first terminal and the third terminal.
Claim 14: system comprising management server and translation server
Claim 15: an authority server configured to assign an operator account of the management server.
Claim 16: non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program for performing claim1 steps.
Claim 1: A method of translating content performed by a computer system, comprising:
Claim 1: receiving an image file of a translation target related to an episode of content created based on a language of a first country;
Claim 1: providing a translation editor for the image file so that a translated episode of the episode based on a language of a second country, different from the first country, is generated, wherein the translation editor provides an input window for receiving a translated language
Claim 9: generating a translation file for the image file using the input translated language
Claim 1 / Claim 9: providing the translation editor and generating the translation file for the image file; providing the file to another task terminal would have been an obvious workflow variation
Claim 1: providing a translation editor for the image file so that a translated episode of the episode based on a language of a second country, different from the first country, is generated
The reference application teaches a content translation platform including management and translation servers for managing translation workflows/content episodes. Andersen (US 8606606 B2, P(43)-P(44), P(67)-(69)) teaches administration tools for assigning operator privileges, translation permissions, and administrator accounts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Andersen’s known workgroup and operator account management techniques into the reference applications translation platform to efficiently organize translation projects and manage user access.
Claim 1: language of a first country and language of a second country are set for generating the translated episode.
The reference application teaches the translation platform/user workflow. Andersen (US 8606606 B2, P(67)-(69)) teaches administrator tools for assigning translation privileges, establishing user permissions, and controlling translator access. Registering a manger to designate translator and lettering user accounts would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the claimed invention to add the implementation of Andersen’s administrative privilege system within the reference applications’ translation platform.
Claim 11: episode information on the episode interworks between a translation server providing the translation editor and a management server transmitting the image file to the translation server.
Obvious update/status variant of reference claims 1, 9, and 11.
Claim 1: translation editor receives translated language for the image file; review/comparison editor is an obvious variant of the translation editor.
Reference application’s translation editor/support-tool workflow makes review/editing feedback an obvious variant
Claim 1: translation editor is provided so that a translated episode based on the second country language is generated.
Obvious review message variant of the reference translation editor/review workflow
Reference application claims image file translation and translation file generation format conversion is an obvious variant
Obvious file format optimization of the reference image file translation workflow
Reference claim 1 recites an image file of a translation target; using different terminal formats is an obvious workflow variation.
Claim 12: management server registers an image file of a translation target and translation server receives the image file.
The reference application teaches the claimed translation server architecture. Andersen (US 8606606 B2, P(67-(69)) teaches an administrative server/tool configured to assign operator privileges, translator permissions, and administrative rights incorporating Ander’s known privilege management functionality into the reference application’s translation system would have been an obvious design choice by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for controlling access to translation operations.
Claim 14: computer-readable medium storing program instructions for receiving an image file and providing the translation editor.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 9, 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen et al. (hereinafter Andersen) (US 8606606 B2) (see attached copy for page numbers) in view of Lee (KR 20240021426 A) (see attached copy for page numbers) in further view of Lakritz (US 7207005 B2) (see attached copy for page numbers).
Regarding claim 1, Andersen discloses:
A method of performing content translation (Andersen, Abstract), comprising:
transmitting, by a management server, a translation target manuscript for an episode of content created based on a first language to a translation server (Andersen, P(13): "Image text 102 represents those text elements that are embedded into an image", P(16): "translation item entries are generated by adapters 104-106, which receive text edit information from website text 101, image text 102, and email text 103" (discloses on a management/content system providing image/text translation content into standardized language processing.));
providing, by the translation server, the translation target manuscript to a first terminal (Andersen, P(39): "When a group of related translation items has been assembled, identified and scheduled for translation using tools 140, the group is ready for submission to translators 160", "the groups with checked boxes 338 are submitted" (discloses on providing the translation target content to translator terminal/user)), and receiving, from the first terminal, translated language corresponding to a second language, where the second language is different from the first language (Andersen, P(45): "the current U.S. text item is displayed in U.S. text field 440 and the associated target language text item, if any, is displayed in target text field 450.", P(48): "Save Translation button 478 will flag the item as translated, save the text in field 450 to the corresponding target language content area " (discloses receiving second-language translated language from the translator terminal));
providing, by the translation server, the translation file to a second terminal (Andersen, P(13): "The editing of the image to accomplish the text replacement can be performed by the translator as a part of the translation of the item or performed by another specialist using commercially available photo editing tools, such as Adobe Photoshop." (discloses sending translated image text work to a second specialist terminal for image editing/lettering));
Andersen does not explicitly disclose:
generating, by the translation server, a translation file for the translation target manuscript using the received translated language
and receiving, from the second terminal, an image file corresponding to the episode, which is translated into the second language using the translation file
However, Lee discloses:
and receiving, from the second terminal, an image file corresponding to the episode, which is translated into the second language using the translation file (Lee, Claims: "a font application unit that applies the font, size, and letter spacing of the original text in the speech bubble determined by the dialogue determination unit to the language translated by the translation unit.", "the font size is changed and applied to be inserted into the speech bubble." (discloses receiving/producing a translated webtoon image/lettered file)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andersen in view of Lee. Doing so would have added the automatically generating translation tasks from primary language text (including image text) and submitting of grouped translation items to translators of Andersen (Andersen, Abstract, P(13), P(39), P(45)) with the webtoon-specific implementation of extracting speech bubble text and applying translated text back into a webtoon imagine using the original font/size/spacing of Lee (Lee, Abstract, Claims 1-3)) thus predictably producing translated image-based content more frequently when combined.
The combination of Andersen and Lee does not explicitly disclose:
generating, by the translation server, a translation file for the translation target manuscript using the received translated language
However, Lakritz discloses:
generating, by the translation server, a translation file for the translation target manuscript using the received translated language (Lakritz, P(72): "The Generator converts the internal format document back to the document's original format (e.g., HTML). The document is then sent to the final destination." (discloses generating a translated file/output using received translated language));
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andersen in view of Lee and Lakritz. Doing so would provide the submission of translation groups of Andersen (Andersen, P(13)) with the application of translated text into webtoon speech bubbles of Lee (Lee, Abstract, Claims 1-3) alongside the workflow pipeline that routes translation work to translation resources and converts interna format documents into the format required by each translation resource of Lakritz (Lakritz, Abstract, P(72)), thus, predictably, improving the translation materials to include a server/workflow and file-format conversation architecture towards different translation and image editing resources.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Andersen, Lee, and Lakritz discloses the method of claim 1.
Andersen further discloses:
further comprising:
generating, by an authority server, a work group, the authority server assigning an operator account of the management server (Andersen, P(33): "the operator is provided tools to assign a name to a group, enter the name of a project that is related to the group, enter a work item identifier", "Each new group is automatically assigned an identifying group number" (discloses work group/project generation by operator tools)), wherein the content and the episode are generated based on the work group in the operator account (Andersen, P(32): "Each individual translation item from item field 310 must be assigned to a group prior to be forwarded to translators 160 for translation processing" (discloses translation content/tasks being generated/organized based on the work group in the operator account)).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Andersen, Lee, and Lakritz discloses the method of claim 2.
Andersen further discloses:
wherein in response to the content and the episode being generated by the management server, the translation server activates a setting function for setting language types of the first language and the second language in the operator account (Andersen, P(37): "the operator of tools 140 will select the identifier of the U.S. release that will contain the new content in the group using drop down menu 352 and select a schedule for the translation deadlines for the group using drop down menu 354. Based on the operator's selections in menus 352 and 354, the associated translation languages, release identifier 358, release date, and translation deadline 360 for each site language 356 in field 350 is automatically filled in." (discloses activating language/deadline setting functions after translation content is grouped/generated)).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Andersen, Lee, and Lakritz discloses the method of claim 3.
wherein a manager is registered to designate at least one user account of the first terminal and the second terminal through the setting function (Andersen, P(21): "Administration tools 180 provides the tools for the assignment and control of grouping and translation privileges", "establishing the language permissions for individual translators" (discloses administrator/manager designating user accounts/translator privileges through settings)).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Andersen, Lee, and Lakritz discloses the method of claim 2.
wherein episode information on the episode interworks between the management server and the translation server, and a change in the episode information is configured to be set in the operator account (Andersen, P(16): "text edit information could either be "pushed" to the appropriate adapter 104-106 by a content management system whenever a text element is added or edited" (reads on interworking changed content/episode information between a content management system and translation processing), P(17), (reads on tracking changed episode/content information in the operator-controlled translation system)).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Andersen, Lee, and Lakritz discloses the method of claim 2.
wherein in response to the episode being modified, the translation target manuscript is replaced based on different criteria depending on whether the translated language is received from the first terminal (Andersen, P(36): "because translation item entries are automatically generated in response to any modification of text in text content 100, certain items may not actually require any translation at all.", P(48): "flag the item as translated, save the text in field 450" (reads on different handling criteria for modified translation items depending on translated/untranslated status)).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Andersen, Lee, and Lakritz discloses the method of claim 1.
Lee further discloses:
wherein the image file is a lettered file in which characters of the episode have been changed to the second language, and a translated episode for the episode is generated using the lettered file (Lee, "Next, the font application unit 400 is configured to apply the font, size, and spacing of the original text in the speech bubble determined by the dialogue determination unit 200 to the language translated by the translation unit. More specifically, the font application unit 400 compares the number of characters of the text included in the speech bubble in the webtoon original file with the number of characters of the translated version in the translation unit, changes the font size, and applies it to be inserted into the speech bubble" (reads on a lettered file in which episode characters are changed to the second language and on generating the translated episode using the lettered file.))
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Andersen, Lee, And Lakritz discloses the method of claim 1.
Lakritz further discloses:
wherein a file format type of the translation target manuscript provided by the translation server to the first terminal is changed to another format type (Lakritz, P(71): "Generators 901 are provided that convert the internal format document that is used within the Pipeline to the appropriate format required by the Translation Resource" (reads on changing the translation target manuscript to another format type for the first terminal/resource)).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Andersen, Lee, and Lakritz discloses the method of claim 11.
Lakritz further discloses:
wherein the translation server changes the file format of the translation target manuscript (Lakritz, P(71): "Generators 901 are provided that convert the internal format document that is used within the Pipeline to the appropriate format required by the Translation Resource" (reads on translation server changing the file format of the translation target manuscript)) and provides the changed low-capacity format of translation target manuscript to the first terminal (Lakritz, P(73): "the Adaptor converts work packets to the appropriate Translation Resource format" (reads on providing the converted file format to the first terminal/translation resource)).
Lakritz does not explicitly disclose:
into a low-capacity format
However, Andersen further discloses:
into a low-capacity format (Andersen, P(13): "The editing of the image to accomplish the text replacement can be performed by the translator as a part of the translation of the item or performed by another specialist using commercially available photo editing tools" (reads on separating the translator's copy to use a reduced/lightweight image format because the translator edits text rather than layered graphics))
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Andersen, Lee, and Lakritz discloses the method of claim 11.
Lee further discloses:
wherein the translation target manuscript is set as an image file (Lee, claim 1: "image and a speech balloon in the original webtoon file", (reads on translation target manuscript being an image file))
Lee does not explicitly disclose:
of a different format between the first terminal and the second terminal
However, Lakritz further discloses:
of a different format between the first terminal and the second terminal (Lakritz, P(71): "convert the internal format document that is used within the Pipeline to the appropriate format required by the Translation Resource", P(73): "Adaptor converts work packets to the appropriate Translation Resource format" (reads on using different file formats for different translation resources/terminals)).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites the system corresponding to the method described in claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Andersen further discloses:
A system for performing content translation (Andersen, Abstract)
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Andersen, Lee, and Lakritz discloses the system of claim 14.
Andersen further discloses:
further comprising:
an authority server configured to assign an operator account of the management server (Anderson, P(21): "Administration tools 180 provides the tools for the assignment and control of grouping and translation privileges", "Persons with administrative privileges can use the administration tools" (reads on authority/admin functionality assigning operator/user privileges for the management system)).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium corresponding to the method described in claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Andersen further discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that enables at least one server to execute steps comprising: (Andersen, Claim 1)
Claims 7-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen et al. (hereinafter Andersen) (US 8606606 B2) (see attached copy for paragraph numbers) in view of Lee (KR 20240021426 A) (see attached copy for page numbers) in further view of Lakritz (US 7207005 B2) (see attached copy for paragraph numbers) in furthest view of Chin et al. (hereinafter Chin) (CN 101657810 A) (see attached copy for page numbers).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Andersen, Lee, and Lakritz discloses the method of claim 1.
The combination of Andersen, Lee, and Lakritz does not disclose:
further comprising:
providing, by the translation server, a comparison window for comparing the episode and the translated language to enable a review of the translated language
However, Chin discloses:
further comprising:
providing, by the translation server, a comparison window for comparing the episode and the translated language to enable a review of the translated language (Chin, Page 2, Description: "automatically displaying a translation feedback window of the selected text. user can easily place the corresponding text translated portion of the source language text selected for comparison" (reads on a comparison window for comparing source text/content and translated language for review))
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andersen in view of Lee, Lakritz, and Chin. Doing so would provide the submission of translation groups of Andersen (Andersen, P(13)) with the application of translated text into webtoon speech bubbles of Lee (Lee, Abstract, Claims 1-3) alongside the workflow pipeline that routes translation work to translation resources and converts interna format documents into the format required by each translation resource of Lakritz (Lakritz, Abstract, P(72)) and the translation feedback window that compares selected translated text with corresponding source language text and forwards user feedback for review (Chin, Abstract, Description Pages 2-4), thus, predictably supplying message review/comparison functionality for improving the translation quality workflow of the existing translation system/methodology.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Andersen, Lee, Lakritz, and Chin discloses the method of claim 7.
Chin further discloses:
wherein the review of the translated language includes at least one of an editing review for modifying and inputting the translated language or a proofreading review for delivering feedback using a message for the translated language (Chin, Page 4: "the user can edit the text or the total replacement. the user selects " contribution (contribute) " button 114 to submit the alternate translation to following translation feedback system described. in addition to the alternate translation, the feedback automatically includes the source text and source text of the source language translation to the target language." (reads on editing review for modifying inputting translated language and proofreading review using a feedback message for the translated language)).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Andersen, Lee, and Lakritz discloses the method of claim 9.
Lee further discloses:
further comprising:
performing a review of the lettered file (Lee, Abstract (reads on reviewed file being a lettered translated webtoon file as translated text is being applied to existing webtoon))
Lee, in combination with Anderson and Lakritz, does not explicitly disclose:
and transmitting a review message to the second terminal through the translation server
However, Chin discloses:
and transmitting a review message to the second terminal through the translation server (Chin, Page 2: "automatically transmitting the user feedback to an appropriate one of personal or community review", Page 4: "user can submit a written comment translation quality" (reads on review feedback/review message transmission)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andersen in view of Lee, Lakritz, and Chin. Doing so would provide the submission of translation groups of Andersen (Andersen, P(13)) with the application of translated text into webtoon speech bubbles of Lee (Lee, Abstract, Claims 1-3) alongside the workflow pipeline that routes translation work to translation resources and converts interna format documents into the format required by each translation resource of Lakritz (Lakritz, Abstract, P(72)) and the translation feedback window that compares selected translated text with corresponding source language text and forwards user feedback for review (Chin, Abstract, Description Pages 2-4), thus, predictably supplying message review/comparison functionality for improving the translation quality workflow of the existing translation system/methodology.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHASHIDHAR S MANOHARAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6772. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Andrew Flanders can be reached at 571-272-7516. 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.
/SHASHIDHAR SHANKAR MANOHARAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2655
/ANDREW C FLANDERS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2655
Prosecution Insights