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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/31/2026 has been entered.
35 USC § 101
With regards to claims 8-14, claim 8 states “a computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media …”. After thorough inspection of the instant specification, examiner cites paragraphs 0019, 0072, 0076 of the specification which explicitly states “A computer program product approach ("CPP approach" or “CPP”) is a term used in the present disclosure to describe any set of one, or more, storage media (also called "mediums") collectively included in a set of one, or more, storage devices that collectively include machine readable code corresponding to instructions and/or data for performing computer operations specified in a given CPP claim” and “A computer readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide, light pulses passing through a fiber optic cable, electrical signals communicated through a wire, and/or other transmission media. As will be understood by those of skill in the art, data is typically moved at some occasional points in time during normal operations of a storage device, such as during access, de-fragmentation or garbage collection, but this does not render the storage device as transitory because the data is not transitory while it is stored”.
As such, claim 8 and claim 9-14 by way of its dependency on claim 8 are considered statutory under 35 USC § 101 because the computer program product is explicitly tied to a computer storage media which is non-transitory and “any tangible device that can retain and store instructions for use by a computer processor” and specifically excludes any transitory signals (see paragraph 0019 for examples).
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments with respect to claim(s) 2-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US 2021/0137237) in view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0377253).
Regarding claim 5, Griffin teaches a computer system comprising:
a processor set (paragraphs 28 and 97-99 teaches wherein the computer system comprises one or more processors, meeting the claimed processor set);
one or more computer-readable storage media (paragraphs 28 and 97-99 teaches media storing program instructions to implement the functionality of the system); and
program instructions stored on the one or more storage media to cause the processor set to perform operations (paragraphs 28 and 97-99 teaches media storing program instructions to implement the functionality of the system) comprising:
receiving a video stream captured by a camera (paragraphs 35 and 38 teaches cameras used to capture video of the presenter and wherein the video captured is received by the system’s processor for functional processes and user monitoring process in paragraphs 31-32), the video stream including images of a presenter (paragraph 38 teaches a presenter in the video stream) and presentation material (paragraphs 35 and 38-39 teaches presentation material);
monitoring movements of the presenter in the video stream (paragraphs 32 and 43 teaches user monitoring, which includes gestures/movements); and
in response to detecting the presenter making a predetermined gesture (paragraphs 68, 79, 96 teaches determining a user gesture), causing the video stream to be edited in real-time such that a portion of the presentation material which corresponds to when the presenter made the predetermined gesture is modified in a manner that is correlated with the predetermined gesture (paragraphs 68, 79, 96 teaches determining a user gesture. Furthermore, based on hand gestures, certain portion of the video image is edited based on a level of engagement indicators which includes a hand gesture).
wherein the causing the video stream to be edited in real-time such that a portion of the presentation material which corresponds to when the presenter made the predetermined gesture is modified in a manner that is correlated with the predetermined gesture includes: removing confidential information from the presentation material in the images (paragraphs 52, 68, 79, 96 teaches determining a user gesture. Furthermore, based on hand gestures, certain portion of the video image is edited/blurred based on a level of engagement indicators which includes a hand gesture. Therefore, Griffin removes confidential information by making it unrecognizable/blurry. Firstly, examiner brings attention to the fact that Griffin’s “user hand gesture” in paragraph 96 triggers such video conference privacy measures and not “user body movement”. Further, claim limitations are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, but the specification is used to inform the meaning of claim terms, not to import limitations that aren’t in the claim language itself. The claim recites “removing confidential information from the presentation material in the image” and under broadest reasonable interpretation, each element of this phrase is construed as such. The term “images” is not defined or structurally limited in the claim and is broadly construed to encompass any visual frame captured or transmitted during a video conference, including live video frames of a user’s environment. Similarly, “Presentation material” is likewise undefined in the claim and is broadly construed to encompass any content present in or displayed within such images, including the visual content of a user’s video feed transmitted to conference participants, such as the background of the video since the claimed “video stream captured by a camera” includes both the presenter and presentation material. “Confidential information” carries no structural definition, identification mechanism, or qualifying limitation in the claim. It is broadly construed as any information a user designated or treats as private, including personal video, background environment, or other visual content a user elects to withhold from conference participants.
Griffin teaches video conference privacy measures in the cited paragraphs 68, 79 and especially 97, which states “In one embodiment, wherein the one or more video conference privacy measures are selected from a group consisting of: blurring user video input to the video conference; stopping user video input to the video conference; replacing user video input to the video conference; and muting user audio input to the video conference. In one embodiment, the one or more video conference privacy measures are user-configured” and paragraph 52 also teaches “replacing video with an image/icon or otherwise setting a full background augmentation”. Under the above constructions, these measures constitute removing confidential information, i.e., visual content the user treats as private, from the presentation material in the images transmitted during the video conference since either the entirety of the stream (presenter and presentation data) or just the background, where additional objects are present are blurred/augmented. Accordingly, this limitation is taught by Griffin.
However, while Griffin teaches the ability to monitor the presenter’s movement and gesture detection, fails to explicitly teach “detecting the presenter make a predetermined gesture corresponding to an edit operation”.
Liu in paragraphs 48-52 and Figs. 3A-5B teaches the claimed “determining the special effect setting instruction input by detecting a user’s gesture”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Liu into the system of Griffin because said incorporation allows for the benefit of overall performance improvement in generating real time special effects and improve the user experience (paragraph 12).
As to claim 1’s methodology, the system of claim 15 performs the methodology as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Griffin teaches the claimed wherein the video stream includes images of the presenter and presentation material (Fig. 4 and paragraph 38 teaches a presenter in the video stream. Further, paragraphs 35 and 38-39 teaches presentation material).
Regarding claim 4, Griffin teaches the claimed wherein the video stream is a live video stream (paragraphs 35, 37-38 and 41 are video conference stream which is a live video stream).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US 2021/0137237) in view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0377253) and further in view of Kvaal et al. (US 2016/0359941).
Regarding claim 3, Griffin and Liu teaches the claimed as discussed in claim 1 above, however fails to, but Kvaal teaches wherein the operations further comprise: in response to the video stream ending, outputting the edited video stream, wherein the outputting the edited video stream includes storing the edited video stream in non-transitory memory (paragraph 20 teaches a similar video conferencing system that allows for video edits and for recording the video conference once ended).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Kvaal into the system of Griffin and Liu because said incorporation allows for the benefit of improving the system by allowing future access to the video conference (paragraph 20).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US 2021/0137237) in view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0377253) and further in view of Gandhi et al. (US 11,245,871).
Regarding claim 6, Griffin and Liu teaches the user being able to make edits to the video conferencing video in claim 1 above, however, fails to explicitly teach, but Gandhi teaches the claimed wherein the causing the video stream to be edited in real-time such that a portion of the presentation material which corresponds to when the presenter made the predetermined gesture is modified in a manner that is correlated with the predetermined gesture includes: highlighting a portion of the presentation material in the images (col. 8, line 48 through col. 9, line 12 teaches wherein gestures in a video can be utilizes by the system to highlight a whiteboard (presentation) area as the user desires).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Gandhi into the system of Griffin and Liu because said incorporation allows for the benefit of improving collaboration between users on a video conference meeting by allowing users to interact with the presentation (col. 2, lines 21-53).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US 2021/0137237) in view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0377253) and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0006960).
Regarding claim 7, Griffin teaches the user being able to make edits to the video conferencing video, however, fails to explicitly teach, but Kim teaches the claimed wherein the operations are performed by a processor in the camera (Fig. 2, wherein all processes are performed on the camera’s processor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Kim into the system of Griffin and Liu because said incorporation allows for the benefit of reducing resources by utilizing one’s own processor to perform operation/analysis required by the system (paragraphs 3-4 of Kim).
Claims 8-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US 2021/0137237) in view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0377253) and further in view of Etwaru (US2024/0129432).
Regarding claim 8, Griffin teaches a computer program product comprising:
one or more computer-readable storage media (paragraphs 28 and 97-99 teaches media storing program instructions to implement the functionality of the system); and
program instructions stored on the one or more storage media to perform operations (paragraphs 28 and 97-99 teaches media storing program instructions to implement the functionality of the system) comprising:
receiving a video stream captured by a camera (paragraphs 35 and 38 teaches cameras used to capture video of the presenter and wherein the video captured is received by the system’s processor for functional processes and user monitoring process in paragraphs 31-32), the video stream including images of a presenter (paragraph 38 teaches a presenter in the video stream) and presentation material (paragraphs 35 and 38-39 teaches presentation material);
monitoring movements of the presenter in the video stream (paragraphs 32 and 43 teaches user monitoring, which includes gestures/movements); and
in response to detecting the presenter making a predetermined gesture (paragraphs 68, 79, 96 teaches determining a user gesture), causing the video stream to be edited in real-time such that a portion of the presentation material which corresponds to when the presenter made the predetermined gesture is modified in a manner that is correlated with the predetermined gesture (paragraphs 68, 79, 96 teaches determining a user gesture. Furthermore, based on hand gestures, certain portion of the video image is edited based on a level of engagement indicators which includes a hand gesture).
However, while Griffin teaches the ability to monitor the presenter’s movement and gesture detection, fails to explicitly teach “detecting the presenter make a predetermined gesture corresponding to an edit operation”.
Liu in paragraphs 48-52 and Figs. 3A-5B teaches the claimed “determining the special effect setting instruction input by detecting a user’s gesture”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Liu into the system of Griffin because said incorporation allows for the benefit of overall performance improvement in generating real time special effects and improve the user experience (paragraph 12).
However, while Griffin and Liu teaches the claimed as discussed above, fails to teach, but Etwaru in a similar video feed sharing system teaches:
wherein the causing the video stream to be edited in real-time such that a portion of the presentation material which corresponds to when the presenter made the predetermined gesture is modified in a manner that is correlated with the predetermined gesture includes: highlighting a portion of the presentation material. (paragraphs 195 and 202 teaches the claimed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Etwaru into the system of Griffin and Liu because said incorporation allows for the benefit of improving user experience by improving visibility of desired areas and for improved user engagement (paragraphs 50, 140 and 193).
Regarding claim 9, Etwaru teaches the claimed wherein the video stream includes images of the presenter and presentation material, wherein highlighting a portion of the presentation material includes: causing sections of the respective images in the video stream which correspond to the portion of the presentation material to be brightened and kept in focus; and intentionally causing a remainder of the respective images in the video stream to be dimmed and kept out of focus (in paragraphs 195 and 202 teaches the claimed limitations).
Regarding claim 11, Griffin teaches the claimed wherein the video stream is a live video stream (paragraphs 35, 37-38 and 41 are video conference stream which is a live video stream).
Regarding claim 12, Griffin teaches the claimed wherein the causing the video stream to be edited in real-time such that a portion of the presentation material which corresponds to when the presenter made the predetermined gesture is modified in a manner that is correlated with the predetermined gesture includes: removing confidential information from the presentation material in the images (paragraphs 68, 79, 96 teaches determining a user gesture. Furthermore, based on hand gestures, certain portion of the video image is edited/blurred based on a level of engagement indicators which includes a hand gesture. Therefore, Griffin removes confidential information by making it unrecognizable/blurry. Paragraphs 68, 79 and especially 97, which states “In one embodiment, wherein the one or more video conference privacy measures are selected from a group consisting of: blurring user video input to the video conference; stopping user video input to the video conference; replacing user video input to the video conference; and muting user audio input to the video conference. In one embodiment, the one or more video conference privacy measures are user-configured” and paragraph 52 also teaches “replacing video with an image/icon or otherwise setting a full background augmentation”. Under the above constructions, these measures constitute removing confidential information, i.e., visual content the user treats as private, from the presentation material in the images transmitted during the video conference since either the entirety of the stream (presenter and presentation data) or just the background, where additional objects are present are blurred/augmented. Accordingly, this limitation is taught by Griffin).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US 2021/0137237) in view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0377253) further in view of Etwaru (US2024/0129432) and further in view of Kvaal et al. (US 2016/0359941).
Regarding claim 10, Griffin, Liu and Etwaru teaches the claimed as discussed in claim 8 above, however fails to, but Kvaal teaches wherein the operations further comprise: in response to the video stream ending, outputting the edited video stream, wherein the outputting the edited video stream includes storing the edited video stream in non-transitory memory (paragraph 20 teaches a similar video conferencing system that allows for video edits and for recording the video conference once ended).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Kvaal into the system of Griffin, Liu and Etwaru because said incorporation allows for the benefit of improving the system by allowing future access to the video conference (paragraph 20).
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US 2021/0137237) in view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0377253) further in view of Etwaru (US2024/0129432) and further in view of Gandhi et al. (US 11,245,871).
Regarding claim 13, Griffin, Liu and Etwaru teaches the user being able to make edits to the video conferencing video in claim 8 above, however, fails to explicitly teach, but Gandhi teaches the claimed wherein the causing the video stream to be edited in real-time such that a portion of the presentation material which corresponds to when the presenter made the predetermined gesture is modified in a manner that is correlated with the predetermined gesture includes: highlighting a portion of the presentation material in the images (col. 8, line 48 through col. 9, line 12 teaches wherein gestures in a video can be utilizes by the system to highlight a whiteboard (presentation) area as the user desires).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Gandhi into the system of Griffin, Liu and Etwaru because said incorporation allows for the benefit of improving collaboration between users on a video conference meeting by allowing users to interact with the presentation (col. 2, lines 21-53).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US 2021/0137237) in view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0377253) further in view of Etwaru (US2024/0129432) and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0006960).
Regarding claim 14, Griffin, Liu and Etwaru teaches the user being able to make edits to the video conferencing video in claim 8 above, however, fails to explicitly teach, but Kim teaches the claimed wherein the operations are performed by a processor in the camera (Fig. 2, wherein all processes are performed on the camera’s processor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Kim into the system of Griffin, Liu and Etwaru because said incorporation allows for the benefit of reducing resources by utilizing one’s own processor to perform operation/analysis required by the system (paragraphs 3-4 of Kim).
Claims 15-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US 2021/0137237) in view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0377253) and further in view of Dhoot et al. (US 2023/0289130).
Regarding claim 15, Griffin teaches a computer program product comprising:
one or more computer-readable storage media (paragraphs 28 and 97-99 teaches media storing program instructions to implement the functionality of the system); and
program instructions stored on the one or more storage media to perform operations (paragraphs 28 and 97-99 teaches media storing program instructions to implement the functionality of the system) comprising:
receiving a video stream captured by a camera (paragraphs 35 and 38 teaches cameras used to capture video of the presenter and wherein the video captured is received by the system’s processor for functional processes and user monitoring process in paragraphs 31-32), the video stream including images of a presenter (paragraph 38 teaches a presenter in the video stream) and presentation material (paragraphs 35 and 38-39 teaches presentation material);
monitoring movements of the presenter in the video stream (paragraphs 32 and 43 teaches user monitoring, which includes gestures/movements); and
in response to detecting the presenter making a predetermined gesture (paragraphs 68, 79, 96 teaches determining a user gesture), causing the video stream to be edited in real-time such that a portion of the presentation material which corresponds to when the presenter made the predetermined gesture is modified in a manner that is correlated with the predetermined gesture (paragraphs 68, 79, 96 teaches determining a user gesture. Furthermore, based on hand gestures, certain portion of the video image is edited based on a level of engagement indicators which includes a hand gesture).
However, while Griffin teaches the ability to monitor the presenter’s movement and gesture detection, fails to explicitly teach “detecting the presenter make a predetermined gesture corresponding to an edit operation”.
Liu in paragraphs 48-52 and Figs. 3A-5B teaches the claimed “determining the special effect setting instruction input by detecting a user’s gesture”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Liu into the system of Griffin because said incorporation allows for the benefit of overall performance improvement in generating real time special effects and improve the user experience (paragraph 12).
However, while Griffin and Liu teaches the claimed as discussed above, fails to teach, but Dhoot in a similar video feed sharing system teaches:
in response to detecting the presenter articulating one or more key words, muting a portion of an audio signal correlated with the images of the presenter and presentation material in the video stream, wherein the muted portion of the audio signal corresponds to when the presenter articulated the one or more key words (Paragraphs 161 at least teaches wherein when the user speaks certain one or more key words like “Mute me”, the microphone is muted during the video conference and other words like “Unmute me” results in the unmuting. Therefore, portions after the spoken one or more key words results meets the claimed “muted portions of the audio signal corresponds to when the presenter articulated the one or more words”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Dhoot into the system of Griffin and Liu because said incorporation allows for the benefit of improving user experience by giving the user additional methods of performing a desired command (paragraphs 159-161).
Regarding claim 16, Griffin teaches the claimed wherein the video stream includes images of the presenter and presentation material (Fig. 4 and paragraph 38 teaches a presenter in the video stream. Further, paragraphs 35 and 38-39 teaches presentation material).
Regarding claim 18, Griffin teaches the claimed wherein the video stream is a live video stream (paragraphs 35, 37-38 and 41 are video conference stream which is a live video stream).
Regarding claim 19, Griffin teaches the claimed wherein the causing the video stream to be edited in real-time such that a portion of the presentation material which corresponds to when the presenter made the predetermined gesture is modified in a manner that is correlated with the predetermined gesture includes: removing confidential information from the presentation material in the images (paragraphs 68, 79, 96 teaches determining a user gesture. Furthermore, based on hand gestures, certain portion of the video image is edited/blurred based on a level of engagement indicators which includes a hand gesture. Therefore, Griffin removes confidential information by making it unrecognizable/blurry. Paragraphs 68, 79 and especially 97, which states “In one embodiment, wherein the one or more video conference privacy measures are selected from a group consisting of: blurring user video input to the video conference; stopping user video input to the video conference; replacing user video input to the video conference; and muting user audio input to the video conference. In one embodiment, the one or more video conference privacy measures are user-configured” and paragraph 52 also teaches “replacing video with an image/icon or otherwise setting a full background augmentation”. Under the above constructions, these measures constitute removing confidential information, i.e., visual content the user treats as private, from the presentation material in the images transmitted during the video conference since either the entirety of the stream (presenter and presentation data) or just the background, where additional objects are present are blurred/augmented. Accordingly, this limitation is taught by Griffin).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US 2021/0137237) in view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0377253) further in view of Dhoot et al. (US 2023/0289130) and further in view of Kvaal et al. (US 2016/0359941).
Regarding claim 17, Griffin, Liu and Dhoot teaches the claimed as discussed in claim 15 above, however fails to, but Kvaal teaches wherein the operations further comprise: in response to the video stream ending, outputting the edited video stream, wherein the outputting the edited video stream includes storing the edited video stream in non-transitory memory (paragraph 20 teaches a similar video conferencing system that allows for video edits and for recording the video conference once ended).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Kvaal into the system of Griffin, Liu and Dhoot because said incorporation allows for the benefit of improving the system by allowing future access to the video conference (paragraph 20).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US 2021/0137237) in view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0377253) and further in view of Dhoot et al. (US 2023/0289130) and further in view of Gandhi et al. (US 11,245,871).
Regarding claim 20, Griffin, Liu and Dhoot teaches the user being able to make edits to the video conferencing video in claim 15 above, however, fails to explicitly teach, but Gandhi teaches the claimed wherein the causing the video stream to be edited in real-time such that a portion of the presentation material which corresponds to when the presenter made the predetermined gesture is modified in a manner that is correlated with the predetermined gesture includes: highlighting a portion of the presentation material in the images (col. 8, line 48 through col. 9, line 12 teaches wherein gestures in a video can be utilizes by the system to highlight a whiteboard (presentation) area as the user desires).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Gandhi into the system of Griffin, Liu and Dhoot because said incorporation allows for the benefit of improving collaboration between users on a video conference meeting by allowing users to interact with the presentation (col. 2, lines 21-53).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US 2021/0137237) in view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0377253) and further in view of Doken (US 2023/0186534).
Regarding claim 21, while Griffin and Liu teaches the claimed as discussed in claim 5 above with regards to blurring a video stream, fails to explicitly teach, however, Doken teaches the claimed wherein removing confidential information from the presentation material in the images includes: identifying text of any kind in the images of the presentation material; determining whether any of the identified text includes one or more key words; and in response to determining at least some of the identified text includes one or more key words, obscuring the at least some of the identified text that includes the one or more key words (abstract and paragraphs 24-27 detects text that is shared and also performs the steps of “detecting restricted text and/or images”. Upon determining the text are to be restricted, the restricted text is obscured/blurred/replaced/etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Doken into the system of Griffin and Liu because such an incorporation allows for the benefit of automatically hiding sensitive information or confidential information (paragraphs 4-9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GELEK W TOPGYAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9:30-6 PST).
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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/GELEK W TOPGYAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights