Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
.
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species
Species I. as exemplified by claims 1-6, 9, 11-17; in keeping with at least classes G06F3/16, 165; H04S7/00; and drawn to audio signal processing to determine directivity information of a sound source based on location and environmental data thereof and to use the directivity information to segment an audio signal for separate processing upon separate devices.
Species II. as exemplified by claims 1,6,7,8; in keeping with at least class H04S7/305; and drawn to particular audio signal processing configurations across devices.
Species III. as exemplified by claims 1,10; in keeping with at least class H04S5/00; and drawn to particular audio signal processing configurations based on specific processing assigned to a device.
The species are independent or distinct because the resolve diverse subject matter in diverse classes and as such a search crafted to return references specific to one species cannot be relied on to return references germane to the remaining species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant was required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, Claims 1, 6 considered generic to species II and claim 1 generic to species III.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: the species resolve distinct classifications and as such a search crafted to return references specific to one species cannot be relied on to return references germane to the remaining species.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Based on a telephone conversation with WEI CHUNG on 9/17/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-6, 9, 11-17. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 7, 8, 10 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention
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 1-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 1, 16, 17 recites a sound processor comprising a sound generator but subsequently recites that the synthesizer of the processor is located upon two devices; as such it cannot be determined upon which device the audio signal processor is housed nor where the generation takes place. Additionally the claim recites that the first and second separate devices respectively process at least one of: the direct sound and early reflection portion, and the early reflection portion and late reverberation portion. As such the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear with regard to a potential readings of the claim where the relied on processing of a particular portion is performed by neither the first nor the second device such as when the first device processes direct sound and the second processes early reflection and no device processes late reverberation. Claims 1, 16, 17 additionally recite “two physically separate device,” in the singular. Claim 2-6, 9, 11-15 do not remedy and are similarly rejected. Claim 12 additionally recites the first device having a memory for storing second acoustic data which is optionally an early reflection “and/or” late reverberation portion; the synthesizer OR generator component configured to use the stored data “when updated two-channel data for the direct sound part are available and updated two-channel acoustic data for the early reflection part or the late reverberation part are not available due to different update rates of the first device and the second device.” The utility of the modules astride the OR recitation is indefinite particularly with regard to the deficiencies noted with respect to claim 1 with respect the conditional “when,” which is acceptable structurally but the OR recitation makes it unclear which device performs which process under which circumstance, and with what temporality in response to the determined availability update. Claim 13 additionally recites the system operative to combine multichannel audio and two channel acoustic data to acquire the two channel audio signal—the specification makes a similar statement but does not discuss the components of multichannel audio nor the manner in which the combination is effected, as such the multichannel audio data be considered stereo audio data. Claim 14 additionally recites “the two channel analyzer,” in a manner lacking clear antecedent; Examiner will presume the two channel synthesizer. Claim 15 uses OR in a manner which renders the claim indefinite as the update ratio necessary cannot be determined particular with regard to the absence of an “update ratio,” in the specification as filed which merely discusses an “update rate.” 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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 11, 13-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner: Creation of Auditory Augmented Reality Using a Position-Dynamic Binaural Synthesis System—Technical Components, /Psychoacoustic Needs, and Perceptual Evaluation (made of record in IDS filed 7/10/25; copyright 1/27/21; and hereinafter We; this paper is authored by a similar but distinct inventive entity and published over 1 year before the effective filing date of the instant invention) further in view of Munoz: 20210409887: hereinafter Mu.
Regarding claim 1
We teaches:
Audio signal processor for generating a two-channel audio signal (We: Abstract: a position dynamic binaural audio system), comprising:
an input interface for providing single-channel acoustic data describing an acoustic environment (We: § 1, p2; Fig 1: an input interface operable for determining single channel room responses describing an acoustic environment; “one way to do this is to just measure the room impulse responses,”);
a two-channel synthesizer for synthesizing two-channel acoustic data from the single-channel acoustic data using a listener position or rotation (We: § 1, pp 2, 3; 2.1; Fig 2: filter creation block synthesizes a signal based on determined BRIR response for a left and right ear thereby output a binaural signal based on realtime BRIR convolution); and
a sound generator for generating the two-channel audio signal from an audio signal and the two-channel acoustic data (We: § 1, p2; 2.1, 2.3; Fig 2: convolution engine generates two channel binaural output from convolution of a source signal with BRIR),
wherein the two-channel synthesizer is configured to separate the single-channel acoustic data into at least two parts comprising a direct sound part and at least one of an early reflection part and a late reverberation part (We: § 2.2.2, 2.3: BRIR comprises direct, early reflection and late reverberation portions which are applied to a source signal), and to individually process the at least two parts for generating two-channel acoustic data for each part (We: § 2.2.2, 2.3, 3.2.1: system processes based on the BRIR portion; wherein the portion dictates the particular processing thereon).
wherein the two-channel synthesizer comprises at least two separate sub processes which are separately scheduled and fine tuned to the particular hardware configuration of the device (We: § 2.2.3: convolution engine divided into separately scheduled separate sub-convolution runs),
wherein the first sub process is configured to process at least one of the direct sound part and the early reflection part (We: § 2.2.2, 2.3; Fig 5, 6, 8: particular direct sound and early reflection portions assigned to a particular sub-convolution such that position and pose data changes the direct sound processing such as to process yaw orientation such as based on determined direct sound and first reflection indices by a processing unit dedicated thereto),
wherein the second sub process is configured to process at least one of the early reflection part and the late reverberation part (We: § 2.2.2, 2.3; Fig 5, 6, 8: the late reverberation sub process comprises a separate pose independent sub-convolution reliant upon greater processing and increased filter size) and
wherein the first the second sub processes model the same environment but comprise separable processes (We: § 2.3: only parts of the filter need to be exchanged when the listener moves about or changes head pose).
We is thus considered to supply the entirety of the functional processing architecture and strongly suggest separate devices—the first and second sub processes above can be considered independent; and further embodiments exist wherein the real time processor receives external position data from another device such as an external tracking unit and outputs using another device such as a headset comprising independent processing (We: § 2.2.2, 2.3, 3.2: sub processes described supra; tracking performed using VIVE tracker, output using an interaural headphone system, DSP thereof). We does not explicitly teach assigning different acoustic data portions to different devices for processing such that the two-channel synthesizer comprises two physically separate devices, wherein the first device of the two physically separated devices is configured to process at least one of the direct sound part and the early reflection part, wherein the second device of the two physically separated devices is configured to process at least one of the early reflection part and the late reverberation part, and wherein the first device and the second device are connected via a transmission interface and have separate power supplies.
In a related field endeavor Mu teaches a system and method for sound field adjustment comprising a two channel synthesizer operable upon to physically separate devices (Mu: ¶ 105, 125, 140-143; Fig 2, 5A, etc.: system performs split audio rendering across a wearable device and a portable electronic streaming device); wherein the first device is configured to process at least one of the direct sound component and the early reflection portion (Mu: ¶ 161, 164-167; Fig 2, 5A, etc.: wearable device performs posed dependent binaural processing based on head tracking and BRIR’s); the second device is configured to process at least one of the early reflection portion or the late reverberation portion (Mu: ¶ 184, 185, 205; Fig 2, 5A, 6, etc.: streaming device generates pose independent two channel content and convey same to wearable device); and wherein the first device and the second device are connected via a transmission interface (Mu: ¶ 134, 136, 146, 156, 161, 185; Fig 2, 5A, 6, etc.: wearable device and streaming device communicate over Bluetooth, 5G, etc.—a “wireless link,” such as comprising transceivers present on each device) and have separate power supplies (Mu: ¶ 3-5, 158, 371, 375: streaming device and wearable device interoperate to reduce power consumption overall; Mu discloses a while explicit power supplies upon each device are not disclosed nor is a means of sharing power therebetween and as such the need for power, power management, and power optimization of each separate device is recognized and absent power sharing means a separate power supply for each device is considered inherent as the disclosed embodiments typically resolve a smart phone in communication with a Bluetooth headset; further a generic example of a processing system operable as each of the devices of the system is shown with a power supply). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to adapt the We taught processing sub processes to the separate device embodiment of Mu for at least the purpose of performing the head tracking and related early reflection subprocesses based thereon as suggested by We upon the Mu taught wearable device and performing the more processing intensive late reverberation processes of We upon a device with greater processing resources such as the smart phone embodied streaming device of Mu; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 2
We in view of Mu teaches or suggests:
Audio signal processor of claim 1, wherein the first device is configured to update the two-channel acoustic data for the direct sound part or the early reflection part more often than the second device updates the two-channel acoustic data for at least one of the early reflection part and the late reverberation part (We: § 2.2.1, 2.3: early reflection update when listener moves or changes head pose; reverberation portion a more complex filter requiring greater processing resources and not pose dependent so not subject to update upon any user movement of self or head); (Mu: ¶ 168-171, 175: head rotation updated at the wearable such as at 100 updates/second whereas the upstream processing has greater latency). The claim is considered obvious over We as modified by Mu as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of We and/or Mu to the modified device of We and Mu; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 3
We in view of Mu teaches or suggests:
Audio signal processor of claim 1, wherein the transmission interface is configured to operate in accordance with a wireless transmission protocol (Mu: ¶ 125, 186, etc.: such as Bluetooth, Wifi, 5G, AptX, etc.). The claim is considered obvious over We as modified by Mu as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of We and/or Mu to the modified device of We and Mu; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 4
We in view of Mu teaches or suggests:
Audio signal processor of claim 1, wherein the first device is a wearable device and additionally comprises the input interface and the sound generator, and wherein the second device is a mobile device or a stationary device separate from the wearable device (We: § 1. 2.3: device operates to acquire room impulse response, generate BRIR, operate convolution engine to perform the recited processing); (Mu: ¶ 105, 125, 134, 246, 139, 140, 165, 190: wearable device comprises a headphone, receives data using a transceiver or link, renders or mixes output to loudspeakers therein; streaming device comprises a smart phone, computer, etc.). The claim is considered obvious over We as modified by Mu as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of We and/or Mu to the modified device of We and Mu; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 5
We in view of Mu teaches or suggests:
Audio signal processor of claim 1, wherein the wearable device is an earbud device, a headphone device or an in-ear device, and wherein the mobile or stationary device is a mobile phone, a smart watch, a tablet, a notebook computer or a stationary computer (Mu: ¶ 125, 134, 139, 140, 165, 190: wearable device comprises a headphone, receives data using a transceiver or link, renders or mixes output to loudspeakers therein; streaming device comprises a smart phone, computer, etc.). The claim is considered obvious over We as modified by Mu as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of We and/or Mu to the modified device of We and Mu; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 6
We in view of Mu teaches or suggests:
Audio signal processor of claim 1, wherein the first device comprises a user tracking system and is configured to transmit data for the user position or orientation to the second device (We: § 2.1, 3.2.2: processor of the system relies on separate tracking device); (Mu: ¶ 134-136, 162-164: first, wearable device operative to determine user, user head parameters including location, velocity, orientation, etc. forward same to streaming device). The claim is considered obvious over We as modified by Mu as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of We and/or Mu to the modified device of We and Mu; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 11
We in view of Mu teaches or suggests:
Audio signal processor of claim 1, wherein the first device is configured to delay the two-channel acoustic data for the direct sound part by a delay value covering a delay incurred by a transmission to the second device and from the second device. Examiner takes official notice that adapting for latency delays among devices was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application and would have comprised an obvious improvement for at least the purpose of rendering audio with improved fidelity and without echoes, shadows or distortion. The claim is thus considered obvious over We as modified by Mu as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of We and/or Mu to the modified device of We and Mu; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 13
We in view of Mu teaches or suggests:
Audio signal processor of claim 1, wherein the sound generator is configured to aggregate the two-channel acoustic data for each part to acquire a full two-channel acoustic data and to combine the full two-channel acoustic data and a multichannel audio signal to acquire the two-channel audio signal, or to combine the two-channel acoustic data for each part and the input audio signal to acquire partial two-channel audio signal for each part and to aggregate the partial two-channel audio signals to acquire the two-channel audio signal (We: § 1, 2.3, 3: system recombines portions into one BRIR to provide “an energy adjustment of the direct sound component, the new interpolated early reflections, and the late reverberation,” wherein the convolutions occur per segment and the late reverberation remains constant across portions while the direct sound/early reflection portions update synthesizes BRIR output audio based on convolving BRIR with input audio such as ambisonic audio in real time); (Mu: ¶ 149 166-171, 175, 190, 205: head rotation, pose adjusted audio updated at the wearable such as at 100 updates/second whereas the head locked audio such as processed upstream at the streaming device has greater latency; pose adjusted and head locked audio combined for output such as at the wearable device). The claim is considered obvious over We as modified by Mu as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of We and/or Mu to the modified device of We and Mu; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 14
We in view of Mu teaches or suggests:
Audio signal processor of claim 1, wherein the two-channel analyzer is configured to update the two-channel acoustic data for each part at a different rate, wherein the direct sound part is updated more often than the remaining parts, or wherein the early reflection part is updated less frequently than the direct sound part and more frequently than the late reverberation part, or wherein the late reverberation part is updated less frequently than the remaining part of the two-channel acoustic data for the acoustic environment (We: § 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3: parts bear different update rates based on complex calculations of long reverb which are not subject to update based on user movements and more rapidly updated orientation directed short reflections); (Mu: ¶ 169; 175; long reverb calculations performed on the streaming device and not subject to updates; short reflections updated, calculated at client). The claim is considered obvious over We as modified by Mu as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of We and/or Mu to the modified device of We and Mu; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 15
We in view of Mu teaches or suggests:
Audio signal processor of claim 1, wherein the second device comprises a calculator or a reverberator network for generating or processing the two-channel audio data for the early reflection and/or the late reverberation part, or wherein the update ratio for the direct sound part is above 15Hz, wherein the update ratio for the early reflection part is greater than 5Hz and lower than 15Hz, or wherein the update ratio for the late reverberation part is greater than 0.5Hz and lower than 5Hz. (We: § 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2: processing network comprises a reverberator network and performs early reflection and long reverb calculations by processing same with respect to a update relationship between the long reverb which is held at constant rate, and short reflection which are position dependent); (Mu: ¶ 125 175, 185, 205: the processor, reverberation, etc. network comprises a first and second device operative to perform reverb processing such as based on direct sound, short reflections and long reverbs by performing processing upon plural devices and based on user position data). The claim is considered obvious over We as modified by Mu as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of We and/or Mu to the modified device of We and Mu; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom..
Regarding claim 16, 17—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Claims 9, 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner: Creation of Auditory Augmented Reality Using a Position-Dynamic Binaural Synthesis System—Technical Components, /Psychoacoustic Needs, and Perceptual Evaluation (made of record in IDS filed 7/10/25; copyright 1/27/21; and hereinafter We; this paper is authored by a similar but distinct inventive entity and published over 1 year before the effective filing date of the instant invention) further in view of Munoz: 20210409887: hereinafter Mu as applied to claims 1-6, 11, 13-17 supra and further in view of Tsingos: 20130010975 hereinafter Ts.
Regarding claim 9
We in view of Mu teaches or suggests the audio signal processor of claim 1, wherein the system operates to receive user position or orientation, to provide the two-channel acoustic data for the early reflection and/or the late reverberation part, and to transmit the two-channel acoustic data for the early reflection part and/or the late reverberation part among the first and second devices (We: ¶ 2.1, 2.2.2: system performs per ear late reverberation processing based on BRIR); (Mu: ¶ 162, 183-186, 205: system communicates position data from wearable to streaming device, such as for late reverberation processing, transmits two channel acoustic data in the form of rendered audio).
We in view of Mu does not explicitly teach the computation of early reflection and/or long reverberation data at a second device in response to the position data and transmit said data rather than the rendered audio to the first device.
In a related field of endeavor Ts teaches a system and method for split client server reverberation processing wherein a server receives position data of one or more client, selects and constructs a late reverberation filter based on the position data and provides early reflection and/or late reverberation data for transmission to the client for downstream processing, audio output, etc. based thereon (Ts: ¶ 9, 30, 53, 110, 116: client transmits position data to server which selects reverberation filtering parameters to be applied to audio data at the client, forwards same to client for processing of audio based on the client determined position data). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize the Ts taught system and method for offloading more complex and compute intensive data to a second device to thereby balance processing between the first and second device of We in view of Mu for at least the purpose of optimizing processing among the devices, conserving link bandwidth between the devices, bridge asynchronous update rates, etc.; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 12
We in view of Mu teaches or suggests the audio signal processor of claim 1, wherein the first device has a memory for storing the acoustic data, wherein the two-channel synthesizer or the sound generator are configured to use the stored two-channel acoustic data in a calculation of a full two-channel acoustic data, based on available, updated, etc. data such as resultant from diverse update rates We: § 2.2.1, 2.3: early reflection update when listener moves or changes head pose; reverberation portion a more complex filter requiring greater processing resources and not pose dependent so not subject to update upon any user movement of self or head); (Mu: ¶ 134, 168-171, 175: head rotation updated at the wearable such as at 100 updates/second whereas the upstream processing has greater latency).
We in view of Mu does not explicitly discuss a system, method, etc. wherein the first device has a memory for storing the second acoustic data for the early reflection part and/or for the late reverberation part, wherein the two-channel synthesizer or the sound generator are configured to use the stored two-channel acoustic data in a calculation of a full two-channel acoustic data based on an update rate mismatch among the devices.
In a related field of endeavor Ts teaches a system and method for split client server reverberation processing wherein a server receives position data of one or more client, selects and constructs a late reverberation filter based on the position data and provides early reflection and/or late reverberation data for transmission to the client for downstream processing, audio output, etc. based thereon (Ts: ¶ 9, 30, 53, 110, 116: system caches client side stored profiles for generating output, the server operates to receive dynamic user position data and determine a filter based thereon, transmit same to the client asynchronously at a lower bit rate than that of the client which client utilizes to update and output audio based on updated position data ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize the Ts taught system and method for offloading more complex and compute intensive data to a second device to thereby balance processing between the first and second device of We in view of Mu for at least the purpose of optimizing processing among the devices, conserving link bandwidth between the devices, bridge asynchronous update rates, etc.; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL C MCCORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3701. The examiner can normally be reached 730-630 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CAROLYN EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-7136. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL C MCCORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights