DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . It is responsive to the submission dated 03/27/2025. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination, of which, claims 1, 16 and 20 are independent claims.
Double Patenting
2. 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
3. Claims 1+2+5+6, claims 3+8, claims 7 and 9-12 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1+8 (combined), claim 3, claim 2 and claims 4-7, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11914841, hereinafter the ’41 patent. Although the claim at issue is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of at least claims 1 and 8 of the instant application, which are not explicitly recited in the claims 1-2, 5-6 of the ’41 patent would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made and/or would have been interpreted equivalent to those limitations recited in the Patent as seen to one of ordinary skill in the art, because they have somewhat similar structural and functional features.
The side-by-side comparison of claims 1-2 + 5-6 of the instant application and claims 1+8 of the 14' patent is as followed.
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: obtaining a text input for generating an icon animation of an object; generating a series of icons based on the text input; and creating the icon animation based on the series of icons.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein each icon of the series of icons embodies a structure of the object based on the text input.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the series of icons comprises: stylizing the series of icons.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the series of icons comprises: identifying a reference image having a style; and stylizing the series of icons according to the style of the reference image.
1. A method computer-implemented method, comprising: obtaining a text input for generating an icon of an object; generating a first icon embodying a structure of the object based on the text input, the structure of the object being characterized by one or more lines; identifying a reference image having a corresponding style; stylizing the first icon into a second icon according to the style of the reference image; generating at least two icons based on at least two objects identified in the text input; and combining the at least two icons into a single new icon.
8. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: obtaining a series of icons based on the text input; and creating an icon animation based on the series of icons.
By analyzing the two claim sets, it is readily apparent that the combined teachings of claims 1 and 8 of the ’41 patent obviously encompassed the claimed limitations found in the combination of claims 1-2 and 5-6 of the instant application. The formulation of claim 1 of the application is a broader version of the patent’s claim 1, and therefore, encompasses an obvious variant thereof. A person skilled in the art, at the time of the ’41 patent, could have easily applied the concept of its claims to yield the creation of an icon animation based on series of icons., without undue experiment of the application’s claim 1. Thus, the combination of claims 1-2 and 5-6 of the application is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting over the combination of claims 1 and 8 of the ’41 patent.
Therefore, the granting of the current application’s claims 1-2 and 5-6 would infringe with the claimed invention found in claims 1 and 8 of the ‘41 patent.
Claims 3 and 8 of the instant application is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting over the respective claim 3 of the ’41 patent, because each of the limitations recited in claims 3 and 8 of the application can be read from claim 3 of the patent, as depicted below..
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the structure of the object is characterized by a combination of lines and curves.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the series of icons comprises: generating vectorized structural data based on the text input, the vectorized structural data comprising coordinate data of lines and curves; obtaining raster data of the series of icons based on the vectorized structural data, the raster data comprising a set of lines and a set of curves; and rendering the series of icons based on the set of lines and the set of curves in the raster data.
3. The method according to claim 2, wherein generating a first icon embodying a structure of the object comprises: generating vectorized structural data based on the text input and the noise input, the vectorized structural data comprising coordinate data of lines and curves; obtaining raster data of the first icon based on the vectorized structural data, the raster data comprising a set of lines and a set of curves; and rendering the first icon based on the set of lines and the set of curves in the raster data.
Thus, the granting of the current application’s claims 3 and 8 would infringe with the claimed invention found in claim 3 of the ‘41 patent.
Claim 7 of the instant application is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting over claim 2 of the ’41 patent, because each of the limitations recited in claim 7 of the application can be read from claim 2 of the patent
Claims 9-12 of the instant application is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting over claims 4-7, respectively, of the ’41 patent, because each of said respective claim sets share the same limitations.
4. Claims 16-17 and claim 20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1+8 (combined) of U.S. Patent No. 11914841, hereinafter the ’41 patent. Although the claim at issue is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of at least claims 16-17 and 20 of the instant application, which are not explicitly recited in the claims 1 and 8 of the ’41 patent would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made and/or would have been interpreted equivalent to those limitations recited in the Patent as seen to one of ordinary skill in the art, because they have somewhat similar structural and functional features.
The side-by-side comparison of claims 16-17 of the instant application and claims 1+8 of the 14' patent is as followed.
16. A device comprising: a processing unit; a memory coupled to the processing unit and storing instructions that, when executed by the processing unit, perform operations comprising: obtaining a text input for generating an icon animation of an object; generating a series of icons based on the text input; and creating the icon animation based on the series of icons.
17. The device of claim 16, wherein each icon of the series of icons embodies a structure of the object based on the text input.
1. A method computer-implemented method, comprising: obtaining a text input for generating an icon of an object; generating a first icon embodying a structure of the object based on the text input, the structure of the object being characterized by one or more lines; identifying a reference image having a corresponding style; stylizing the first icon into a second icon according to the style of the reference image; generating at least two icons based on at least two objects identified in the text input; and combining the at least two icons into a single new icon.
8. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: obtaining a series of icons based on the text input; and creating an icon animation based on the series of icons.
By analyzing the two claim sets, it is readily apparent that the teachings of claims 1 and 8 of the ’41 patent obviously encompassed all the claimed limitations found in claims 16 and 17 of the instant application. The features of claims 16-17 of the application are substantially the same as those of claims 1 and 8 of the patent, except the invention category. The claim set, thus, encompasses an obvious variant thereof. A person skilled in the art, at the time of the ’41 patent, could have easily applied the concept of its claims to yield the generation of a first icon embodying a structure of the object based on the text input and the noise input, the structure of the object being characterized by one or more lines, without undue experiment of the application’s claim 16 and 17. Thus, claim 16-17 of the application is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting over the combination of claims 1 and 8 of the ’41 patent.
A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed method is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed method from a prior art if the prior art method teaches all the functional limitations of the claim. In the present case, the instant application’s claims are not functionally distinguishable from the claims of the claims of the ‘41 patent. Further, the extent that the instant application claims are broaden and therefore generic to instant claimed invention, In re Goodman 29 USPQ 2d 2010 CAFC 1993, states that a generic claim cannot be issued without a terminal disclaimer, if a species claim has been previously been claimed in a patent. Therefore, the granting of the current application’s claims 16-17 would infringe with the claimed invention found in claims 1 and 8 of the ‘41 patent.
The features of claim 20 of the application are substantially the same as those of claims 1 and 8 of the patent, except the invention category. The claim set, thus, encompasses an obvious variant thereof. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1+8 (combined) of the 41 patent under the same rationale described above with respect to the rejections of claims 16-17 over claims 1 and 8 of the 41 patent. As such, the granting of the current application’s claim 20 would infringe with the claimed invention found in claims 1 and 8 of the ‘41 patent.
5. Claims 1+2+5+6, claims 3+8, claims 7 and 9-13 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1+9 (combined), claim 3, claim 2 and claims 4-8, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12287951, hereinafter the ’51 patent. Although the claim at issue is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of at least claims 1 and 9 of the instant application, which are not explicitly recited in the claims 1-2, 5-6 of the ’51 patent would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made and/or would have been interpreted equivalent to those limitations recited in the Patent as seen to one of ordinary skill in the art, because they have somewhat similar structural and functional features.
The side-by-side comparison of claims 1-2 + 5-6 of the instant application and claims 1+9 of the 51' patent is as followed.
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: obtaining a text input for generating an icon animation of an object; generating a series of icons based on the text input; and creating the icon animation based on the series of icons.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein each icon of the series of icons embodies a structure of the object based on the text input.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the series of icons comprises: stylizing the series of icons.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the series of icons comprises: identifying a reference image having a style; and stylizing the series of icons according to the style of the reference image.
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: obtaining a text input for generating an icon of an object; generating a first icon embodying a structure of the object based on the text input, the structure of the object being characterized by one or more lines; identifying a reference image having a corresponding style; stylizing the first icon into a second icon according to the style of the reference image; generating at least two icons based on at least two objects identified in the text input; and combining the at least two icons into a single new icon.
9. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: obtaining a series of icons based on the text input; and creating an icon animation based on the series of icons.
By analyzing the two claim sets, it is readily apparent that the combined teachings of claims 1 and 9 of the ’51 patent obviously encompassed the claimed limitations found in the combination of claims 1-2 and 5-6 of the instant application. The formulation of claim 1 of the application is a broader version of the patent’s claim 1, and therefore, encompasses an obvious variant thereof. A person skilled in the art, at the time of the ’51 patent, could have easily applied the concept of its claims to yield the creation of an icon animation based on series of icons., without undue experiment of the application’s claim 1. Thus, the combination of claims 1-2 and 5-6 of the application is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting over the combination of claims 1 and 9 of the ’51 patent.
Therefore, the granting of the current application’s claims 1-2 and 5-6 would infringe with the claimed invention found in claims 1 and 9 of the ‘41 patent.
Claims 3 and 8 of the instant application is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting over the respective claim 3 of the ’51 patent, because each of the limitations recited in claims 3 and 8 of the application can be read from claim 3 of the patent, as depicted below..
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the structure of the object is characterized by a combination of lines and curves.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the series of icons comprises: generating vectorized structural data based on the text input, the vectorized structural data comprising coordinate data of lines and curves; obtaining raster data of the series of icons based on the vectorized structural data, the raster data comprising a set of lines and a set of curves; and rendering the series of icons based on the set of lines and the set of curves in the raster data.
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein generating a first icon embodying a structure of the object comprises: generating vectorized structural data based on the text input and the noise input, the vectorized structural data comprising coordinate data of lines and curves; obtaining raster data of the first icon based on the vectorized structural data, the raster data comprising a set of lines and a set of curves; and rendering the first icon based on the set of lines and the set of curves in the raster data.
Thus, the granting of the current application’s claims 3 and 8 would infringe with the claimed invention found in claim 3 of the ‘51 patent.
Claim 7 of the instant application is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting over claim 2 of the ’51 patent, because each of the limitations recited in claim 7 of the application can be read from claim 2 of the patent
Claims 9-13 of the instant application is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting over claims 4-8, respectively, of the ’51 patent, because each of said respective claim sets share the same limitations.
6. Claims 16-17 and claim 20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1+9 (combined) of U.S. Patent No. 12287951, hereinafter the ’51 patent. Although the claim at issue is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of at least claims 16-17 and 20 of the instant application, which are not explicitly recited in the claims 1 and 9 of the ’51 patent would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made and/or would have been interpreted equivalent to those limitations recited in the Patent as seen to one of ordinary skill in the art, because they have somewhat similar structural and functional features.
The side-by-side comparison of claims 16-17 of the instant application and claims 1+9 of the 51' patent is as followed.
16. A device comprising: a processing unit; a memory coupled to the processing unit and storing instructions that, when executed by the processing unit, perform operations comprising: obtaining a text input for generating an icon animation of an object; generating a series of icons based on the text input; and creating the icon animation based on the series of icons.
17. The device of claim 16, wherein each icon of the series of icons embodies a structure of the object based on the text input.
1. A method computer-implemented method, comprising: obtaining a text input for generating an icon of an object; generating a first icon embodying a structure of the object based on the text input, the structure of the object being characterized by one or more lines; identifying a reference image having a corresponding style; stylizing the first icon into a second icon according to the style of the reference image; generating at least two icons based on at least two objects identified in the text input; and combining the at least two icons into a single new icon.
9. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: obtaining a series of icons based on the text input; and creating an icon animation based on the series of icons.
By analyzing the two claim sets, it is readily apparent that the teachings of claims 1 and 9 of the ’51 patent obviously encompassed all the claimed limitations found in claims 16 and 17 of the instant application. The features of claims 16-17 of the application are substantially the same as those of claims 1 and 9 of the patent, except the invention category. The claim set, thus, encompasses an obvious variant thereof. A person skilled in the art, at the time of the ’51 patent, could have easily applied the concept of its claims to yield the generation of a first icon embodying a structure of the object based on the text input and the noise input, the structure of the object being characterized by one or more lines, without undue experiment of the application’s claim 16 and 17. Thus, claim 16-17 of the application is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting over the combination of claims 1 and 9 of the ’51 patent.
A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed method is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed method from a prior art if the prior art method teaches all the functional limitations of the claim. In the present case, the instant application’s claims are not functionally distinguishable from the claims of the claims of the ‘41 patent. Further, the extent that the instant application claims are broaden and therefore generic to instant claimed invention, In re Goodman 29 USPQ 2d 2010 CAFC 1993, states that a generic claim cannot be issued without a terminal disclaimer, if a species claim has been previously been claimed in a patent. Therefore, the granting of the current application’s claims 16-17 would infringe with the claimed invention found in claims 1 and 5 of the ‘51 patent.
The features of claim 20 of the application are substantially the same as those of claims 1 and 8 of the patent, except the invention category. The claim set, thus, encompasses an obvious variant thereof. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1+9 (combined) of the ‘51 patent under the same rationale described above with respect to the rejections of claims 16-17 over claims 1 and 9 of the ‘51 patent. As such, the granting of the current application’s claim 20 would infringe with the claimed invention found in claims 1 and 9 of the ‘51 patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-15 and 17 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite for reciting steps written with broadly functional claimed language that only describes the function of the invention as opposed to how it is carried out.
In particular, claim 1 recites: “obtaining a text input for generating an icon animation of an object; generating a series of icons based on the text input; and creating the icon animation based on the series of icons.
However, none of the verb functions is tied to a specific actor that makes the claim sequence (e.g., the obtaining, generating and creating steps) concrete and self-contained, instead of a concatenation of block box experiments, where only inputs and outputs are specified, without providing any details describing how the function of the inputs operate to achieve the stated result.
Accordingly, since the functional limitations fail to limit the claims, to make clear the scope of the claims, the applicant, in response to this office action, is suggested to amend the claims such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, or material for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter(s).
Claim 4 is indefinite because the parameter for the noise input is unknown, including how the random value is generated so as to impact the noise input. Thus, a clearly defined and precise mete and bound of the claim are lacking.
Claim 17 is indefinite under the same rationale as claim 4
The claims not specifically rejected are rejected as being dependent upon their rejected base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(a1) as being anticipated by Koivisto et al. (2070124700).
Considering claim 1, Koivisto discloses a computer-implemented method (see figs. 1 and 2), comprising: obtaining (102 of fig. 1) a text input (via item 106, fig. 1) for generating an icon animation of an object (e.g., Koivisto discloses creating icons from an image database from which a context of a file is first established by parsing its name and text and use phrases found in the text to generate a query to the image database for use to create icons from the image content. See paras. 3, 21-22 and 24-30 and 32-38. Para. 41 of Koivisto further discloses arranging the icon sequences to generate an animated icon);
generating a series of icons based on the text input (e.g., Koivisto discloses creating icons from content items in SMIL (synchronized multimedia integration language) format. The SMIL is typically used for multimedia presentations integrating streaming A/V images including text or some other media type to better illustrate the contents of a presentation by icons. See para. 40); and
creating the icon animation based on the series of icons (see para. 41).
As per claim 2, Koivisto discloses the series of icons embodies a structure (e.g., size or shape or square) of the object based on the text input. See paras. 36-37.
As per claim 5, Koivisto discloses stylizing the series of icons. See paras. 36-37 and 40
As per claim 6, Koivisto discloses identifying a reference image having a style (e.g., detecting an appropriate image size from a reference image for editing by a user editor. See paras. 32-37); and stylizing the series of icons according to the style of the reference image (see paras. 21-29 and 36-40).
As per claim 7, Koivisto discloses the text input comprises at least one of a category, a keyword, a text description, or an attribute associated with the object. See paras. 3, 21-22 and 24-30 and 32-38.
As per claim 10, Koivisto discloses receiving a user input for a first icon, the user input indicating to adjust at least one of a shape and an attribute of a line in the first icon; and adjusting a structure of the object in the first icon based on the user input. See paras. See paras. 32-40 in view of paras. 21-22 and 24-29.
The subject-matter of independent claim 16 is similar in scope to that of claim 1, and the rationale raised above to reject the later also apply, mutatis mutandis, to the former.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 16 or 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 3-4, 9, 11-15 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable, upon resolution of the indefiniteness issues and obviousness-type double patenting rejections set forth above, if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, because the prior art of record fail to teach the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the structure of the object is characterized by a combination of lines and curves (as recited in claim 3). The prior art of record fail to teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a random value for a noise input, wherein generating the series of icons is based on the text input and the noise input (as recited in claim 4), wherein generating the series of icons comprises: generating vectorized structural data based on the text input, the vectorized structural data comprising coordinate data of lines and curves; obtaining raster data of the series of icons based on the vectorized structural data, the raster data comprising a set of lines and a set of curves; and rendering the series of icons based on the set of lines and the set of curves in the raster data (as recited in claim 8), wherein stylizing the series of icons comprises: determining semantic information of the object based on the text input; and performing color padding for the series of icons based on a structure and the semantic information of the object (as recited in claim 11), wherein generating the series of icons comprises: iteratively training a discriminator and a generator using a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN), the discriminator being used to determine whether an icon is real or fake (as recited in claim 12), wherein generating the series of icons comprises: generating at least two icons based on at least two semantical meanings obtained from the text input; and combining the at least two icons into a single new icon (as recited in claim 13), and wherein generating the series of icons comprises: generating a plurality of candidate icons based on the object; receiving a user input that identifies a selected candidate icon from the plurality of candidate icons; and generating the series of icons based on the selected candidate icon (as recited in claim 14).
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nicholas (US 20070136462) discloses a method for displaying messages on a display driven by an electronic device that has a graphical user interface including a cursor icon in the shape of a corporate or product logo.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESNER SAJOUS whose telephone number is (571) 272-7791. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:00 TO 7:30 (ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 or email the Examiner directly at wesner.sajous@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Said Broome can be reached on 571-272-2931. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WESNER SAJOUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
WS
10/03/2026
