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
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 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12367009. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter and any differences are considered obvious variants or extensions of the instant claims.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11693619. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter and any differences are considered obvious variants or extensions of the instant claims.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10956116. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter and any differences are considered obvious variants or extensions of the instant claims.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e); 35 U.S.C. 129; or 35 U.S.C. 121; as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application Nos. 62672020; 16119642; 16871594; 17930817, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. As detailed in the 35 USC 112, first paragraph rejections infra the specification does not discuss a playback device operable to receive a command designating a playback target(s), and thereby cease playback of a stream while continuing to translate subsequent portions of said stream into an incompatible protocol and transmit the incompatible protocol stream to an external device. As such any claim for priority must resolve the filing date of the instant application 12/20/24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 8, 15 recite a playback device, method, instructions therefor to operate according to a command to designate playback targets wherein a playback device in receipt of the command operates to “cease playback of the first audio stream and translate a second portion of the first audio stream to a second audio stream conforming to a second wireless streaming protocol for playback by the playback targets, wherein the first second wireless streaming protocol is incompatible with the first streaming protocol; and send, via the at least one network interface, the second audio stream to a second playback device implemented in a second housing and a third playback device implemented in a third housing, wherein the second playback device and the third playback device play back the second audio stream concurrently.” The specification discusses embodiments of protocol bridging wherein a bridging device operates to actively render and concurrently distribute a translated stream and timing signals thereof such as to maintain synchrony across domains (please see the instant specification at ¶ 21-30, etc.) but contains no disclosure of operational states where the first device, when halted such as by indication of a new target device(s), ceases playback and continues to stream subsequent translated audio data to the designated playback device(s). Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 do not remedy and are similarly rejected.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention as described above. Particularly, the contested subject matter is not considered enabled based on the following Wands factors:
The claims broadly encompass any playback device that halts local playback in favor of translating the remainder of a stream into an incompatible protocol for playback on a remote target or targets;
An invention practicing the contested claimed subject matter requires real-time distribution audio synchronization as well as management of machine state transitions, buffer management and adjustment, and dynamic cross protocol stream management for translation into, upon, etc. an incompatible protocol; implementation of such as system requires specific technical guidance to effect;
Conventional systems of the prior art stream media via a dedicated or designated coordinator device operable to actively render an audio stream while distributing same;
The level of ordinary skill to effect the contested claimed subject matter is high requiring specific disclosure rather than reliance on routine coding—the specification does not provide such guidance;
Absent clear guidance on effecting the claimed transition, translation, etc. the predictability of arriving upon system to perform synchronous cross-protocol translation to an incompatible protocol is low with failure more likely than success;
The specification provides no guidance on how to accomplish the control routines, state transitions, buffer management, pipeline maintenance, protocol transcoding, or overall synchrony based thereon;
The working examples provided show the first playback device, coordinator, etc. decoding and playing the native stream while effecting cross protocol translation and transmission;
Accordingly considerable work is left to a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a the claimed subject matter without undue experimentation.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 do not remedy and are similarly rejected.
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.
Claim 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 1, 8, 15 recite “the first second wireless streaming protocol,” in a manner rendering the claims indefinite. Claim 8 recites “Claim 15 additionally recites “the at least one network interface,” in a manner lacking antecedent. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 do not remedy and are similarly rejected. Additionally claims 3, 10, 17 recite “a third audio stream,” with which a first audio stream is in synchrony, the claim fails to define the composition, source, etc. of the third audio stream and as such the synchronization dynamics are unclear and the claim indefinite.
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gossain: 20150092947 hereinafter Go further in view of Coburn: 20150172756 hereinafter Co and further in view of Rajapakse: 20170019197 hereinafter Ra.
Regarding claim 1
Go teaches:
A first playback device comprising: at least one network interface; at least one processor; a first housing carrying the at least one network interface and the at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor (Go: Fig 2A, 4: such as the Figure 4 processor driven device housed as shown in figure 2A and operative to execute coded instructions instantiated from memory) such that the first playback device is configured to:
receive, via the at least one network interface, a first audio stream conforming to a first wireless streaming protocol (Go: ¶ 61, 62, 132; Fig 2A, 4: a coordinator of a zone receives audio content stream from an audio source such as over a network interface and in concert with a particular protocol, processes same, and forwards portions thereof);
play back a first portion of the first audio stream (Go: 31, 132, etc.: first, etc. group playback devices operate to play portions of the stream);
receive, from a mobile device implemented in an additional housing, a command to designate a second playback device and a third playback device as playback targets (Go: ¶ 42, 47, 72, 121-124; Fig 4, 5, 10, 11; Table 1-3: such as by user operation of a controller to designate, second, third, etc. individually housed playback devices as targets for adding to a group, for grouping, etc.);
and a command to cease playback of the first audio stream (Go: ¶ 72: such as by dropping the zone corresponding to the first playback device)
and send, via the at least one network interface, the second audio stream to a second playback device implemented in a second housing and a third playback device implemented in a third housing, wherein the second playback device and the third playback device play back the first audio stream concurrently and subsequently cease playback from the first playback device (Go: ¶ 23, 31, 32, 42, 72 etc.; Fig 5, 10, 11: coordinator forwards stream portions to second, third, etc. device in concert with timing information for synchronous playback; subsequent operation of a drop zone command operates to remove a designated playback device from the group of devices delivering the media).
Go additionally suggests translating among protocol domains including incompatible domains as the zone players discussed operate over a proprietary mesh network which is not considered compatible absent appropriate proprietary hardware or software bearing the appropriate protocol, transcoder, adapter, etc. such as necessary to resolve a stream arriving based on a standard protocol and render the stream in a manner suitable to the proprietary mesh network (Go: ¶ 49, 50, 62, 67) thus teaches or suggests all the claim elements but does not explicitly teach the system operative to: cease playback of the first audio stream and translate a second portion of the first audio stream to a second audio stream conforming to a second wireless streaming protocol for playback by the playback targets, as in response to a singular command. Particularly where the “first second wireless streaming protocol is incompatible with the first streaming protocol.”
In a related field of endeavor Co teaches a wireless audio system comprising a plurality of independently housed playback devices operable to wirelessly transmit audio content among the playback devices (Coa: Abstract; Fig 2A, 4, 6) wherein the system operates to translate a command to hand off playback from a controller to add or drop zones such as for handoff from a current playback device, group thereof, to a next playback device, group thereof and to include timing information for local synchrony therein such that a next group delivers media in synchrony (Co: ¶ 31, 52, 64-71, 79, 80: system translates a stream from a cloud based streaming service to devices upon a proprietary mesh network such as upon handoff among devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the coordinator device of Go to receive a handoff command such as that of Co and to thereby improve and simplify the controller operations to effect the adding, instantiating playback upon, etc. of a next playback device, group thereof and the dropping, ceasing playback upon a current playback device, group thereof as well as coordinating the translation of protocols necessary thereto; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
It may be that Go in view of Co does not explicitly discuss bridging the audio data across incompatible networks.
In a related field of endeavor Ra teaches a system and method for operating a network of media devices (Ra: Abstract: ¶ 42, 50, 54, etc.; Figs 2, 3) comprising a source such as a phone or controller connected to a first playback device (Ra: Abstract: ¶ 42-44, 50, 51, 54, etc.; Figs 2, 3, 4) such that the first playback device is configured to: receive, via the at least one network interface, a first audio stream conforming to a first wireless streaming protocol (id.: source 301 delivers media stream to first playback device 304 such as over a first protocol); play back a first portion of the first audio stream (Ra: Abstract: ¶ 42-46, 50, 51, 54, 55, etc.; Figs 2, 3, 4: such as by rendering to output device 320); and operable to translate a second portion of the first audio stream to a second audio stream conforming to a second wireless streaming protocol for playback by playback targets, wherein the first second wireless streaming protocol is incompatible with the first streaming protocol (Ra: Abstract: ¶ 42-46, 50, 51, 54, 55, etc.; Figs 2, 3, 4: first playback device operates to rebroadcast a received first protocol, Bluetooth signal, etc. by transcoding to a second protocol, wifi signal, etc. the protocols are considered incompatible as they do not predictably interoperate without transcoding); and send, via the at least one network interface, the second audio stream to a second, third, etc. playback devices (id.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the Go in view of Co wireless playback devices, network thereof to equip each/any of the devices upon the network such as the first playback, to transcode an audio stream from a first network protocol to a second network protocol as taught or suggested by Ra for at least the purpose of delivering audio across network protocols in the manner claimed; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 2
Go in view of Co in view of Ra teaches or suggests:
The first playback device of claim 1, wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to send the second audio stream to the second playback device and the third playback device comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to:
send, via the at least one network interface to the second playback device and the third playback device, timing information conforming to the second wireless streaming protocol, wherein the second playback device and the third playback device play back the second audio stream synchronously according to the timing information conforming to the second wireless streaming protocol (Go: ¶ 23, 105-116: domain synchrony based on designated and variable coordinator to distribute audio and timing to grouped devices); (Co: ¶ 64-72: external applications function as a virtual line in to provide audio to controller and/or coordinator on a local network to distribute audio and timing to grouped devices); (Ra: ¶ 45-47: system operates to transcode, bridge, etc. first, second, etc. protocols across a network of playback devices). The claim is considered obvious over Go as modified by Co and Ra as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Go, Co, and/or Ra to the modified device of Go, Co, and Ra; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 3
Go in view of Co in view of Ra teaches or suggests:
The first playback device of claim 1, wherein the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprises program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to: receive timing information conforming to the first wireless streaming protocol, wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to play back the first portion of the first audio stream comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to: play back the first portion of the first audio stream in synchrony with a third audio stream playing back on a fourth playback device according to the timing information conforming to the first wireless streaming protocol (Go: ¶ 22, 23, 52-55, 99, 105-116: system operates to compare, determine, etc. a coordinator device for distributing audio content and timing to group members such as based on coordinating the clocks of the DAC of the subordinate devices); (Co: 64-72: incoming application stream delivered across local playback network by coordinator device which adds timing such that grouped devices deliver audio in synchrony); (Ra: ¶ 46-47: system receives content at a particular device transcodes, bridges, etc. across a first, second protocol and forwards media, timings, commands, etc. based thereon). The claim is considered obvious over Go as modified by Co and Ra as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Go, Co, and/or Ra to the modified device of Go, Co, and Ra; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 4
Go in view of Co in view of Ra teaches or suggests:
The first playback device of claim 3, wherein the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprises program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to: join a group conforming to the first wireless streaming protocol, the group including the fourth playback device (Go: ¶ 22, 23, 52-55, 98-104, 125-134: system forms groups, joins playback devices based on user operation of controller user interface to direct coordinator selection, forwarding of audio, timing information by same). The claim is considered obvious over Go as modified by Co and Ra as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Go, Co, and/or Ra to the modified device of Go, Co, and Ra; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 5
Go in view of Co in view of Ra teaches or suggests:
The first playback device of claim 1, wherein the second playback device is grouped, via a third wireless streaming protocol, with a fifth playback device, and wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to send the second audio stream to the second playback device comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to: send, via the at least one network interface, the second audio stream to the second playback device for synchronous playback with the fifth playback device according to the third wireless streaming protocol (Go: ¶ 23, 105-116: domain synchrony based on designated and variable coordinator to distribute audio and timing to grouped devices); (Co: ¶ 64-72: external applications function as a virtual line in to provide audio to controller and/or coordinator on a local network to distribute audio and timing to grouped devices); (Ra: ¶ 45-47: system operates to transcode, bridge, etc. first, second, etc. protocols across a network of playback devices). The claim is considered obvious over Go as modified by Co and Ra as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Go, Co, and/or Ra to the modified device of Go, Co, and Ra; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 6
Go in view of Co in view of Ra teaches or suggests:
The first playback device of claim 1, wherein the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprises program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to: receive, via the at least one network interface from the mobile device, a first playback command conforming to the first wireless streaming protocol; translate the first playback command to a second playback command conforming to the second wireless streaming protocol; and send, via the at least one network interface to the second playback device, the second playback command (Go: ¶ 22, 23, 52-55, 99, 105-116: system operates to compare, determine, etc. a coordinator device for distributing audio content and timing to group members such as based on coordinating the clocks of the DAC of the subordinate devices); (Co: 64-72: incoming application stream delivered across local playback network by coordinator device which adds timing such that grouped devices deliver audio in synchrony); (Ra: ¶ 46-47: system receives content at a particular device transcodes, bridges, etc. across a first, second protocol and forwards media, timings, commands, etc. based thereon). The claim is considered obvious over Go as modified by Co and Ra as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Go, Co, and/or Ra to the modified device of Go, Co, and Ra; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 7
Go in view of Co in view of Ra teaches or suggests:
The first playback device of claim 1, further comprising a physical line-out interface, wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to play back the first portion of the first audio stream comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the first playback device is configured to: play back the first portion of the first audio stream via the physical line-out interface (Go: ¶ 41; Fig 2C: such as utilizing a line out to forward signal to an external amplifier); (Co: ¶ 27, Fig 2C: such as utilizing a line out to forward signal to an external amplifier). The claim is considered obvious over Go as modified by Co and Ra as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Go, Co, and/or Ra to the modified device of Go, Co, and Ra; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 8, 15—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 9, 16—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 2 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 10, 17—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 3 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 11, 18—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 4 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 12, 19—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 5 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 13—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 6 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 14, 20—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 7 and are similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL C MCCORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3701. The examiner can normally be reached 730-630 M-F.
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, CAROLYN EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-7136. 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.
/PAUL C MCCORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights