DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application is the Continuation of PCT/JP2023/025801 filed on July 12, 2023, which claims priority of Japanese Patent Application No. JP2023-100247 filed on July 20, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (“IDS”) filed on 04/11/2025 was reviewed and the listed references were noted.
Drawings
The 10-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “an acquisition part”, “a mask processing execution part”, “a determination part”, and “a transmission part” relevant to Claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. The claims recite acquiring an image captured by a camera, executing mask processing of creating a mask image in which an area outside a capturable area in the image is masked, determining if the mask processing was executed, and transmitting the mask image when it is determined the mask processing is executed.
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claims are directed to a method, which is among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong 1:
With regard to Step 2A – Prong 1, for example in Claim 1, the limitations of " determining whether or not the mask processing is executed", as claimed, only involves mental processes, such as the determination that mask processing has been executed. That is, nothing in the above-described claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind or on a piece of paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind or through mathematical calculations, but for the recitation of a generic apparatus components, such as a processor, computer program, or machine-readable media, then it falls within the "mental processes", which include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, or mathematical calculations groupings of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional elements in the claims do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the following additional steps "… acquiring an image captured by a camera; executing mask processing of creating a mask image in which an area outside a capturable area in the image is masked… and transmitting the mask image when it is determined that the mask processing is executed”, i.e., insignificant extra-solution activity involving applying the abstract idea without a technological improvement. The other additional recited element in certain other claims are a processor and a computer-readable storage medium, which are generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a field-of-use limitation that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim as a whole, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claim fails under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under Step 2B. The claim herein does not include additional steps that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements/steps amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activities. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic apparatus component, such as a processor, cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. It should be noted that a similar analysis may be performed with respect to independent Claims 9 and 10.
Further, with regard to dependent Claims 2-8 viewed individually, these additional steps are under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims limitations amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For example, the recognition of markers in the image for creating the mask image as recited in Claim 2 or turning on a flag to indicate a mask image can be transmitted due to proper mask processing as recited in Claim 3 are only examples of routine and conventional image processing steps or steps that could be completed within the human mind and do not amount to significantly more to consider as inventive steps. Accordingly, Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegame et al. (US 20200322506 A1) in view of Jose et al. (US 20220309183 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ikegame teaches "An information processing method in a computer, the information processing method comprising: acquiring an image captured by a camera"; (Ikegame, FIG. 5 and Para. 81, teaches the camera functions as an acquisition unit that acquires an original image, i.e., acquiring an image captured by a camera);
"executing mask processing of creating a mask image in which an area outside a capturable area in the image is masked"; (Ikegame, FIG. 13 and Para. 100, teaches a first image portion or area that includes no confidential information and is to be shared with the instructor and a second area defined by the identifiers is an area that may include confidential information wherein a layer filled with black is superimposed on the second image portion making the second area visually unrecognizable, i.e., mask processing of creating a mask image in which an area outside a capturable area in the image is masked being the masking of the second area).
However, Ikegame does not explicitly teach "determining whether or not the mask processing is executed; and transmitting the mask image when it is determined that the mask processing is executed".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Jose teaches "determining whether or not the mask processing is executed"; (Jose, Paras. 17-18, teaches masking sensitive elements from the rendered webpage and the screen capturing agent may be configured to be forced to wait for an acknowledgement message from the webpage browser, which the webpage browser would send back to the screen capturing agent upon successful masking of the sensitive elements and the screen capturing agent may be configured to start the screen capturing event, i.e., determine whether or not the mask processing is executed being the acknowledgement of successful masking of the sensitive elements);
"and transmitting the mask image when it is determined that the mask processing is executed"; (Jose, Paras. 18 and 34, teaches the screen capturing agent may be configured to be forced to wait for an acknowledgement message from the webpage browser, which the webpage browser would send back to the screen capturing agent upon successful masking of the sensitive elements and the screen capturing agent may be configured to start the screen capturing event wherein the computing device associated with the user may be configured to make images displayed on a connected monitor visible to one or more users through the screen sharing in a web-conference or a screen activity recording, wherein the sensitive information will be hidden from the unauthorized viewing users, i.e., transmitting the mask image when it is determined that the mask processing is executed being the screen sharing beginning upon successful acknowledgment of masking).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Ikegame by including the determining if mask processing is executing and transmitting the mask image if it was processed taught by Jose. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it automatically masks sensitive data (Jose, Paras. 1-2, teaches the motivation of combination to be to automatically mask sensitive data to prevent unauthorized access).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of references of Ikegame in view of Jose teaches "The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the mask processing includes: recognizing a plurality of markers included in the image"; (Ikegame, Abstract and Para. 82 and FIGs 11 and 13, teaches a recognition unit that recognizes one or more identifiers in the original image, an identification unit that identifies, based on the one or more identifiers recognized by the recognition unit, at least one of a first image portion capturing a first area in the original area or a second image portion capturing a second area that results from removing the first area from the original area, i.e., recognizing a plurality of markers in the image being the recognition of the plurality of identifiers);
"and creating a mask image in which an area outside the capturable area surrounded by the plurality of markers that are recognized in the image is masked"; (Ikegame, Para. 100 and FIG. 13, teaches a second area defined by the identifiers is an area that may include confidential information wherein a layer filled with black is superimposed on the second image portion making the second area visually unrecognizable, i.e., create a mask image in the area outside the capturable area surrounded by the plurality of markers that are recognized in the image is masked being the masking of the second area which is outside the are surrounded by the identifiers).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of references of Ikegame in view of Jose teaches "The information processing method according to claim 1,further comprising: turning on a flag indicating that the mask image can be transmitted after the mask processing is first executed"; (Jose, Para. 18, teaches an acknowledgement message from the webpage browser, which the webpage browser would send back to the screen capturing agent upon successful masking of the sensitive elements and the screen capturing agent may be configured to start the screen capturing event, i.e., a flag on indicating the mask image can be transmitted after mask processing being the acknowledgment message received after mask processing indicating that screen capturing can start);
"wherein in the determining whether or not the mask processing is executed, whether or not the flag is on is determined, and when it is determined that the flag is on, it is determined that the mask processing is executed"; (Jose, Paras. 18 and 34, teaches the screen capturing agent may be configured to be forced to wait for an acknowledgement message from the webpage browser, which the webpage browser would send back to the screen capturing agent upon successful masking of the sensitive elements and the screen capturing agent may be configured to start the screen capturing event, i.e., determining if flag is on or not being the waiting for receipt of the acknowledgement message and when flag is on determining mask processing is executed being the receipt of the acknowledgement message indicating successful masking of the sensitive elements).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Ikegame and Jose references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 3. Thus, the method recited in claim 3 is met by Ikegame in view of Jose.
Claim 9 recites a device with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Ikegame and Jose references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Ikegame and Jose references discloses a processor executing a stored application (for example, see Ikegame, Paragraph 68).
Claim 10 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Ikegame and Jose references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Ikegame and Jose references discloses a computer readable storage medium (for example, see Ikegame, Paragraph 57).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegame in view of Jose and Damick (US 20200012817 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of references of Ikegame in view of Jose teaches "The information processing method according to claim 1,further comprising: displaying the mask image that is created after the mask processing is first executed"; (Ikegame, Para. 90, teaches the processed image is output to the display unit, i.e., displaying the mask image that’s created after the mask processing).
However, the combination of references of Ikegame in view of Jose does not explicitly teach "receiving an instruction indicating whether or not the mask processing is normally executed input by a worker; and turning on a flag indicating that the mask image can be transmitted when an instruction indicating that the mask processing is normally executed input by the worker is received; wherein in the determining whether or not the mask processing is executed, whether or not the flag is on is determined, and when it is determined that the flag is on, it is determined that the mask processing is executed”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Damick teaches "receiving an instruction indicating whether or not the mask processing is normally executed input by a worker"; (Damick, Para. 78, teaches the owner may confirm that the redacted version is approved for sharing if the redacted version is proper, i.e., worker inputs an indication of whether or not the mask processing is normally executed being the confirmation that the redacted version of the image is proper);
"and turning on a flag indicating that the mask image can be transmitted when an instruction indicating that the mask processing is normally executed input by the worker is received"; (Damick, Paras. 78 and 83, teaches the owner may confirm that the redacted version is approved for sharing if the redacted version is proper, or if the redacted version needs to be modified, owner may enter annotations in the asset or provide instructions to content-sharing application to indicate how the modifications should be done, i.e., turning on a flag indicating the mask image can be transmitted when an instruction indicating the mask processing is normally executed input by a worker is received being the owner indicating the redacted version is proper and is approved for sharing);
"wherein in the determining whether or not the mask processing is executed, whether or not the flag is on is determined, and when it is determined that the flag is on, it is determined that the mask processing is executed"; (Damick, Paras. 78 and 83, teaches the owner may confirm that the redacted version is approved for sharing if the redacted version is proper, or if the redacted version needs to be modified, owner may enter annotations in the asset or provide instructions to content-sharing application to indicate how the modifications should be done, i.e., it is determining whether or not the flag is on which determines that the mask processing is executed being the owner's confirmation that the redacted version is proper and the image is approved for sharing).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Ikegame and Jose by including the turning on a flag when a mask image can be transmitted due to mask processing being normally executed taught by Damick. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it removes sensitive information from being shared (Damick, Para. 1, teaches the motivation of combination to be to remove sensitive information from a digital asset for sharing).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of references of Ikegame in view of Jose and Damick teaches "The information processing method according to claim 4, further comprising: turning off the flag when an instruction indicating that the mask processing is not normally executed input by the worker is received"; (Damick, Paras. 78-80, teaches if the redacted version needs to be modified, owner may enter annotations in the asset or provide instructions to content-sharing application to indicate how the modifications should be done in which modification steps can be performed repeatedly until the owner confirms the redacted version is approved for sharing, i.e., flag is off when worker inputs indication that the mask processing is not normally executed being the indication that the owner thinks the redacted version is not proper and needs modification);
"wherein in the determining whether or not the mask processing is executed, whether or not the flag is on is determined, and when it is determined that the flag is off, it is determined that the mask processing is not executed"; (Damick, Paras. 78-80, teaches the owner may confirm that the redacted version is approved for sharing if the redacted version is proper, or if the redacted version needs to be modified, owner may enter annotations in the asset or provide instructions to content-sharing application to indicate how the modifications should be done in which modification steps can be performed repeatedly until the owner confirms the redacted version is approved for sharing, i.e., determine if flag is on or not being owner considering the redaction proper or needs modification and determine mask processing is not executed when the flag is off being the image still requiring modification such as further or changed redactions);
"and in the transmitting a mask image, when it is determined that the mask processing is not executed, the mask image is not transmitted"; (Damick, Para. 80, teaches the modification steps are performed repeatedly until owner confirms that the redacted version is approved for sharing, i.e., mask image is not transmitted when it is determined the mask processing is not executed being the determination that the redacted version needs further modification until it is approved for sharing).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Ikegame, Jose, and Damick references presented in the rejection of Claim 4, applies to claim 5. Thus, the method recited in claim 5 is met by Ikegame in view of Jose and Damick.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegame in view of Jose and Morita (US 20090161156 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of references of Ikegame in view of Jose does not explicitly teach "The information processing method according to claim 3, further comprising: turning off the flag when the transmission of a mask image is ended".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Morita teaches "The information processing method according to claim 3, further comprising: turning off the flag when the transmission of a mask image is ended"; (Morita, Para. 93, teaches clearing the transmission flag upon completion of the transfer of the image data, i.e., turning off the flag when transmission of the image is ended).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Ikegame and Jose wherein the image is a mask image and the flag indicates masking processing by including the turning off the flag after transmission taught by Morita. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it facilitates the transfer of image data (Morita, Para. 84, teaches the motivation of combination to facilitate the transfer of image data between apparatuses).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegame in view of Jose, Damick, and Morita.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of references of Ikegame in view of Jose and Damick does not explicitly teach "The information processing method according to claim 4, further comprising: turning off the flag when the transmission of a mask image is ended".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Morita teaches "The information processing method according to claim 4, further comprising: turning off the flag when the transmission of a mask image is ended"; (Morita, Para. 93, teaches clearing the transmission flag upon completion of the transfer of the image data, i.e., turning off the flag when transmission of the image is ended).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Ikegame, Jose, and Damick wherein the image is a mask image and the flag indicates masking processing by including the turning off the flag after transmission taught by Morita. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it facilitates the transfer of image data (Morita, Para. 84, teaches the motivation of combination to facilitate the transfer of image data between apparatuses).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of references of Ikegame in view of Jose, Damick, and Morita teaches "The information processing method according to claim 5, further comprising: turning off the flag when the transmission of a mask image is ended"; (Morita, Para. 93, teaches clearing the transmission flag upon completion of the transfer of the image data, i.e., turning off the flag when transmission of the image is ended).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Ikegame, Jose, Damick, and Morita references presented in the rejection of Claim 7, applies to claim 8. Thus, the method recited in claim 8 is met by Ikegame in view of Jose, Damick, and Morita.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW STEVEN BUDISALICH whose telephone number is (703)756-5568. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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.
/ANDREW S BUDISALICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights