DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 13 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 3, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The method of claim 2, wherein determining, based at least in part on processing the image by the augmented reality device, that the first content item is displayed in the first portion comprises:
determining that displayed content in the first portion is separate from other displayed content that is viewable through the augmented reality device; and
determining that the displayed content in the first portion corresponds to the first content item.
For claim 13, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The system of claim 12, wherein the control circuitry, when determining, based at least in part on processing the image by the augmented reality device, that the first content item is displayed in the first portion, is configured to:
determine that displayed content in the first portion is separate from other displayed content that is viewable through the augmented reality device; and
determine that the displayed content in the first portion corresponds to the first content item.
For claim 14, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The system of claim 13, wherein the control circuitry, when [[the]] determining that the displayed content in the first portion is separate from the other displayed content that is viewable through the augmented reality device, is configured to identify a separator between the displayed content in the first portion and the other displayed content that is viewable through the augmented reality device.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For dependent claim 3, this claim establishes “displayed content” and “other displayed content”. Claim 3 goes on to recite the phrase “the displayed content” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of the previously established “displayed content” and “other displayed content” is being referenced by the phrase “the displayed content”. Examiner has suggested amendments in the claim objections discussed above to resolve the ambiguities.
For dependent claim 4, this claim depends from claim 3 and inherits the deficiencies of clam 3. Therefore, claim 4 is likewise indefinite.
For dependent claim 13, this claim establishes “displayed content” and “other displayed content”. Claim 13 goes on to recite the phrase “the displayed content” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of the previously established “displayed content” and “other displayed content” is being referenced by the phrase “the displayed content”. Examiner has suggested amendments in the claim objections discussed above to resolve the ambiguities.
For dependent claim 14, this claim depends from claim 13 and inherits the deficiencies of clam 13. Therefore, claim 14 is likewise indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2009/0125510 A1, hereinafter “Graham”) (made of record of the IDS submitted 1/15/2025) in view of Dollar, JR. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0312369 A1, hereinafter “Dollar”) and Lee et al., Graphical Menus using a Mobile Phone for Wearable AR Systems, 2011 International Symposium on Ubiquitous Virtual Reality, July 2011 (hereinafter “Lee”).
For claim 1, Graham discloses a method (disclosing a system and method for presenting mixed reality as augmented reality (par. 3)) comprising: identifying a first content item displayed in a first portion of content that is viewable through an augmented reality device, wherein the first content item comprises a keyword (disclosing recognition to identify a first content item of a keyword displayed in a first portion of content viewable through a mixed media reality (MMR) device as an augmented reality device (Figs. 26-27; par. 185-186)); identifying a plurality of content items from one or more content sources (disclosing matching to identify a set of advertisements as a plurality of content items from a database (par. 186)); and generating for display each content item as an overlay over the content using the augmented reality device, wherein the overlay is positioned over a second portion of the content, and wherein the overlay does not obscure the first portion of the content (disclosing each advertisement is displayed as an overlay over the content using the MMR device where the overlay is positioned over a different portion of the content so that the overlay does not obscure the first portion of the content with the keyword (Fig. 26-27; par. 186 and 193)).
Graham does not disclose wherein each of a plurality of content items is associated with respective metadata that is relevant to a keyword, generating a playlist that comprises the plurality of content items, wherein the playlist is ordered based on the respective metadata associated with each of the plurality of content items, and generating sequential display each content item of the playlist.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Dollar.
Dollar similarly discloses a system and method for identifying a plurality of content items to match a keyword (par. 2 and 33). Dollar discloses each of its plurality of content items is associated with respective metadata relevant to the keyword for identifying the plurality of content items to match the keyword (par. 33). Dollar explains generating a playlist comprising the plurality of content items where the plurality of items are ordered based on the respective metadata so that the plurality of content items are sequentially displayed from a queue of the playlist (par. 25 and 34-35). It follows Graham may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Dollar to associate of its plurality of content items with respective metadata that is relevant to its keyword, generated a playlist that comprises its plurality of content items, wherein the playlist is ordered based on the respective metadata and generating for sequential display each content item of the playlist as its overlay.
A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Graham with the teachings of Dollar. Dollar is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for identifying a plurality of content items to match a keyword (par. 2 and 33). Dollar discloses its use of a playlist is advantageous in appropriately sequentially displaying content items relevant to an identified keyword (par. 25 and 34-35). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Dollar into Graham for appropriately sequentially displaying content items relevant to an identified keyword.
Graham as modified by Dollar does not disclose content as a first device.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Lee.
Lee similarly discloses a system and method for presenting augmented reality to augment display of content viewable through a head mounted display as an augmented reality device (page 55). Lee explains the content viewable through the head mounted display may be another device such as a mobile phone so that an overlay is positioned with respect to the mobile phone in displaying the augmented reality (page 56/Fig. 1 and page 58/Fig. 3). It follows Graham and Dollar may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Lee to implement a first device that is viewable through its augmented reality device for generating its overlay with respect to the first device.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Graham and Dollar with the teachings of Lee. Lee is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for presenting augmented reality to augment display of content viewable through a head mounted display as an augmented reality device (page 55). Lee discloses its use of a mobile device is advantageous in appropriately augmenting content displayed on the mobile device to appropriately present augmented reality on an augmented reality display device reality (page 57 and page 58/Fig. 3). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Lee into Graham and Dollar for appropriately augmenting content displayed on the mobile device to appropriately present augmented reality on an augmented reality display device reality. Therefore, claim 1 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For claim 6, depending on claim 1, Graham as modified by Dollar and Lee wherein the playlist is ordered based on one or more of a timestamp, a geographical location, a type of content item, and a content source (Dollar similarly discloses a system and method for identifying a plurality of content items to match a keyword (par. 2 and 33); Dollar discloses each of its plurality of content items is associated with respective metadata relevant to the keyword for identifying the plurality of content items to match the keyword (par. 33); Dollar explains generating a playlist comprising the plurality of content items where the plurality of items are ordered based on the respective metadata so that the plurality of content items are sequentially displayed from a queue of the playlist (par. 25 and 34-35); Dollar further explains the playlist may be ordered based on geographical location (par. 31 and 35); and it follows Graham may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Dollar to associate of its plurality of content items with respective metadata that is relevant to its keyword, generated a playlist that comprises its plurality of content items, wherein the playlist is ordered based on the respective metadata and generating for sequential display each content item of the playlist as its overlay).
Claim(s) 2-4, 11-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham in view of Dollar and Lee further in view of Small et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0147836 A1, hereinafter “Small”) (made of record of the IDS submitted 1/15/2025).
For claim 2, depending on claim 1, Graham as modified by Dollar and Lee does not disclose detecting a visual focus through an augmented reality device at a first portion; based at least in part on detecting the visual focus, capturing an image of content that is viewable through the augmented reality device, wherein the image depicts at least the first portion; and determining, based at least in part on processing the image by the augmented reality device, that a first content item is displayed in the first portion.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Small.
Small similarly discloses a system and method for presenting mixed reality as augmented reality by augmenting content that is viewable through a mixed reality display device (par. 8). Small explains its detects a gaze as a visual focus through the mixed reality display device to capture an image of the content viewable through the mixed reality display device where the image depicts a portion (par. 42-43). Small discloses, based on processing the image, determination that a keyword as a content item is displayed in the portion (par. 42). It follows Graham, Dollar and Lee may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Small for detecting a visual focus at its first portion of its first device for determining that its first content item is displayed in its first portion.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Graham, Dollar and Lee with the teachings of Small. Small is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for presenting mixed reality as augmented reality by augmenting content that is viewable through a mixed reality display device (par. 8). Small discloses its use of visual focus is advantageous in identifying keywords selected by a user to appropriately present mixed reality (par. 42-43). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Small into Graham, Dollar and Lee for identifying keywords selected by a user to appropriately present mixed reality. Therefore, claim 2 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For claim 3, depending on claim 2, Graham as modified by Dollar, Lee and Small discloses wherein determining, based at least in part on processing the image by the augmented reality device, that the first content item is displayed in the first portion comprises: determining that displayed content in the first portion is separate from other displayed content that is viewable through the augmented reality device; and determining that the displayed content corresponds to the first content item (Graham discloses determining that displayed content in the first portion is separate from other displayed content viewable through the MMR device by a visual marker 2612 and determining that the displayed content corresponds to the identified keyword (Figs. 26-27; par. 185-186 and 192)).
For claim 4, depending on claim 3, Graham as modified by Dollar, Lee and Small discloses wherein the determining that the displayed content in the first portion is separate from the other displayed content that is viewable through the augmented reality device comprises identifying a separator between the displayed content in the first portion and the other displayed content that is viewable through the augmented reality device (Graham discloses determining that displayed content in the first portion is separate from other displayed content viewable through the MMR device by identifying a visual marker 2612 as a separator between the displayed content in the first portion and the other displayed content viewable through the MMR device (Figs. 26-27; par. 185-186 and 192)).
For claim 11, Graham as modified by Dollar, Lee and Small discloses a system (Graham discloses a system (par. 15)), comprising control circuitry and display circuitry (Small similarly discloses a system and method for presenting mixed reality as augmented reality by augmenting content that is viewable through a mixed reality display device (par. 8); Small explains its system may be implemented with control circuitry and display circuitry for performing the functions of a system (par. 55); and it follows Graham, Dollar and Lee may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Small to implement control circuitry and display circuitry for appropriately carrying out the functions of its system) configured to perform the method of claim 1 (see above as to claim 1).
For claim 12, depending on claim 11, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 11 and claim 2. It follows claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 11 and claim 2.
For claim 13, depending on claim 12, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 12 and claim 3. It follows claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 12 and claim 3.
For claim 14, depending on claim 13, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 13 and claim 4. It follows claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 13 and claim 4.
For claim 16 depending on claim 11, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 11 and claim 6. It follows claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 11 and claim 6.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham in view of Dollar and Lee further in view of Goh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0124591 A1, hereinafter “Goh”).
For claim 5, depending on claim 1, Graham as modified by Dollar and Lee does not disclose identifying, based on a keyword, one or more related search terms.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Goh.
Goh similarly discloses a system and method for presenting content relevant to an identified keyword (par. 4). Goh explains it is known to identify synonyms as related search terms for a keyword to determine relevant content for presentation (par. 41). It follows Graham, Dollar and Lee may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Goh for identifying, based on its keyword, one or more related search terms for identifying its plurality of content items.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Graham, Dollar and Lee with the teachings of Goh. Goh is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for presenting content relevant to an identified keyword (par. 4). Goh discloses its use of synonyms is advantageous in generating related search terms to appropriately present relevant content for display (par. 41). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Goh into Graham, Dollar and Lee for generating related search terms to appropriately present relevant content for display. Therefore, claim 5 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham in view of Dollar and Lee further in view of Takeuchi (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0302645 A1).
For claim 7, depending on claim 1, Graham as modified by Dollar and Lee discloses wherein each of the plurality of content items is associated with respective metadata that is relevant to a geographical location (Dollar similarly discloses a system and method for identifying a plurality of content items to match a keyword (par. 2 and 33); Dollar discloses each of its plurality of content items is associated with respective metadata relevant to the keyword for identifying the plurality of content items to match the keyword (par. 33); Dollar explains generating a playlist comprising the plurality of content items where the plurality of items are ordered based on the respective metadata so that the plurality of content items are sequentially displayed from a queue of the playlist (par. 25 and 34-35); Dollar further explains the plurality of content items is associated with respective metadata relevant to a geographical location (par. 33-35); and it follows Graham may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Dollar to associate of its plurality of content items with respective metadata that is relevant to its keyword, generated a playlist that comprises its plurality of content items, wherein the playlist is ordered based on the respective metadata and generating for sequential display each content item of the playlist as its overlay).
Graham as modified by Dollar and Lee does not specifically disclose a keyword indicates a geographical location.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Takeuchi.
Takeuchi similarly discloses a system and method for presenting augmented reality by overlaying an image over a captured input image of the real world (par. 165). Takeuchi explains its system may determine a geographic location as indicated in a keyword for determining content in generating the overlay image to present the augmented reality (par. 207). It follows Graham, Dollar and Lee may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Takeuchi for determining a geographical location as indicated by its keyword.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Graham, Dollar and Lee with the teachings of Takeuchi. Takeuchi is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for presenting augmented reality by overlaying an image over a captured input image of the real world (par. 165). Takeuchi discloses its use of a geographical location is advantageous in generating appropriate content for an overlay image to present augmented reality (par. 165 and 207). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Takeuchi into Graham, Dollar and Lee for generating appropriate content for an overlay image to present augmented reality. Therefore, claim 7 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham in view of Dollar and Lee further in view of Takeuchi further in view of Williams et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0078174 A1, hereinafter “Williams”).
For claim 8, depending on claim 7, Graham as modified by Dollar, Lee and Takeuchi does not disclose social media content associated with a geographical location.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Williams.
Williams similarly discloses a system and method for presenting augmented reality in connection with a geographical location (par. 13 and 29). Williams explains content presented in connection with the geographical location may be social media content (par. 29). It follows Graham, Dollar, Lee and Takeuchi may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Williams for implementing social media content associated with its geographical location.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Graham, Dollar, Lee and Takeuchi with the teachings of Williams. Williams is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for presenting augmented reality in connection with a geographical location (par. 13 and 29). Williams discloses its use of social media content is advantageous in presenting appropriate content for a geographical location to display augmented reality (par. 29). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Williams into Graham, Dollar, Lee and Takeuchi for presenting appropriate content for a geographical location to display augmented reality. Therefore, claim 8 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham in view of Dollar and Lee further in view of Miao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0021374 A1, hereinafter “Miao”).
For claim 9, depending on claim 1, Graham as modified by Dollar and Lee does not disclose detecting a user interaction and generating for display a virtual image depicting a magnified version.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Miao.
Miao similarly discloses a system and method for presenting augmented reality to superimpose a graphic as a virtual image over content viewable through an augmented reality device (par. 25). Miao explains its augmented reality device detects user input as a user interaction for generating the graphic as the virtual image to depict a magnified version of the content viewable through the augmented device over a portion of the content (Figs. 5a-d; par. 63). It follows Graham, Dollar and Lee may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Miao for detecting a user interaction associated with its first portion and generating for display a visual image depicting a magnified version of its first content item positioned over a third portion of its first device using its augmented reality device.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Graham, Dollar and Lee with the teachings of Miao. Miao is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for presenting augmented reality to superimpose a graphic as a virtual image over content viewable through an augmented reality device (par. 25). Miao discloses its use of user interaction is advantageous in magnifying content for appropriate presentation of augmented reality (Figs. 5a-d; par. 63). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Miao into Graham, Dollar and Lee for magnifying content for appropriate presentation of augmented reality. Therefore, claim 9 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham in view of Dollar and Lee further in view of Stafford (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0362110 A1).
For claim 10, depending on claim 1, Graham as modified by Dollar and Lee does not disclose receiving user identity information, wherein the user identity information comprises at least one of user speech audio data and biometric data; and accessing, based on the user identity information, a user profile associated with an augmented reality device.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Stafford.
Stafford similarly discloses a system and method for overlaying images over captured video to present augmented reality for display on a head mounted display (HMD) as an augmented reality device (par. 9 and 123-124). Stafford explains the HMD receives user identify information of biometric data to access a user profile associated with the HMD (par. 24 and 55). It follows Graham, Dollar and Lee may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Stafford for receiving user identity information of biometric data to access a user profile associated with its augmented reality device.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Graham, Dollar and Lee with the teachings of Stafford. Stafford is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for overlaying images over captured video to present augmented reality for display on a head mounted display (HMD) as an augmented reality device (par. 9 and 123-124). Stafford discloses its use of biometric data is advantageous in providing preferred settings of a user to appropriately present augmented reality (par. 24 and 55). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Stafford into Graham, Dollar and Lee for providing preferred settings of a user to appropriately present augmented reality. Therefore, claim 10 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham in view of Dollar and Lee further in view of Small further in view of Goh.
For claim 15, depending on claim 11, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 11 and claim 5. It follows claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 11 and claim 5.
The rationale for combining the teachings of Goh with Graham, Dollar, Lee and Small is incorporated from claim 5.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham in view of Dollar and Lee further in view of Small further in view of Takeuchi.
For claim 17, depending on claim 11, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 11 and claim 7. It follows claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 11 and claim 7.
The rationale for combining the teachings of Takeuchi with Graham, Dollar, Lee and Small is incorporated from claim 7.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham in view of Dollar and Lee further in view of Small further in view of Takeuchi further in view of Williams.
For claim 18, depending on claim 17, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 17 and claim 8. It follows claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 17 and claim 8.
The rationale for combining the teachings of Williams with Graham, Dollar, Lee, Small and Takeuchi is incorporated from claim 8.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham in view of Dollar and Lee further in view of Small further in view of Miao.
For claim 19, depending on claim 11, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 11 and claim 9. It follows claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 11 and claim 9.
The rationale for combining the teachings of Miao with Graham, Dollar, Lee and Small is incorporated from claim 9.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham in view of Dollar and Lee further in view of Small further in view of Stafford.
For claim 20, depending on claim 11, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 11 and claim 10. It follows claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 11 and claim 10.
The rationale for combining the teachings of Stafford with Graham, Dollar, Lee and Small is incorporated from claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TSENG whose telephone number is (571)270-3857. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-7761. 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.
/CHARLES TSENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights