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 .
Claims 1-20 are present for examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following terms have been interpreted according to the disclosure:
Physical edge: Specification, para. [0016] defines physical edges as edges obtained from faces.
Virtual edge: Specification, para. [0016] defines virtual edges as edges that do not actually exist in the face list.
simplicial complex: Specification, para. [0086], disclosing a simplicial 2-complex refers to a structured set composed of points, line segments, and triangles, called simplices, such that all the faces, edges, vertices are included in the set.
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 1-20 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.
The term “prioritized” in claims 1, 10, and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “prioritized” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In particular, claim 1 recites “iteratively collapsing the edges in the edge list, the collapsing being prioritized by a quadric error metric based on a combination of an edge quadric error and an area quadric error”. It is not clear how the collapsing is prioritized by the quadric error metric based on a combination of an edge quadric error and an area quadric error. Does one error have priority over the other error? Does one edge have priority over another edge? Or Is the prioritizing for when the iteration stops? It is also not clear how to stop the iteration because no stopping criteria has been provided.
In addition, claim 1 recites “retrieving an initial triangle mesh; constructing an edge list for the initial triangle mesh, wherein the edge list includes physical edges and virtual edges.” A person skilled in the art would understand that a triangle is a face including three vertices and three edges, and a triangle mesh can include multiple triangles (faces) forming a face list. It is not clear how the virtual edges being included in the edge list because based on Applicant’s definition, the virtual edges are edges that do not actually exist in the face list, indicating they do not exist in the initial triangle mesh. Therefore, it is not clear whether the initial triangle mesh includes the virtual edges, or how the virtual edges are created after receiving the initial triangle mesh. Also, if the virtual edges do not exist in the face list of the initial triangle mesh, it is not clear how the initial triangle mesh can be decimated to generate a simplified triangle mesh if only virtual edges in the edge list are collapsed.
Claims 10 and 16 recite similar limitations discussed above with respect to claim 1 respectively.
Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1 but fail to cure all the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claims 11-15 depend from claim 10 but fail to cure all the deficiencies of claim 10.
Claims 17-20 depend from claim 16 but fail to cure all the deficiencies of claim 16.
For example, although claim 5 recites limitations defining the virtual edges, it fails to cure the other deficiencies of claim 1. In addition, claim 5 recites “forming a virtual edge between a vertex pair that is closest to the closest points for the pair of triangles.” It is not clear whether a vertex is the same as or different than a point.
Claims 12 and 18 respectively recite similar limitations discussed above with respect to claim 5.
Claim 7 recites “uses greedy edge collapses to simplify a connectivity of the simplicial complex.” The term “greedy” and the term “simplify” are subjective terms that different person might have different interpretations of the scopes of these terms.
Claims 14 and 20 respectively recite similar limitations discussed above with respect to claim 7.
Claim 9 recites “performing validity checks and rejecting edges that violate the validity checks”. The term “validity” is a subjective term that different person might have different interpretation of the scope of the term. Also, it is not clear whether the “edges” recited in claim 9 are physical edges or virtual edges.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are indefinite.
For examination purposes, the prioritized has been interpreted as based on any priority used by the collapsing, the iteration has been interpreted as being able to stop when the quadric error metric meets a threshold, and the virtual edges have been interpreted as being any edges in the initial triangle mesh.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 6198486 B1 to Junkins et al. in view of Hoppe (Hoppe, Progressive Meshes) and US Patent Publication No. 20150170398 A1 to Hsu.
Regarding claim 1, Junkins discloses A computer-implemented method to simplify triangle meshes (Junkins, Abstract, disclosing generating a multi-resolution mesh from an original mesh by collapsing edges or the original mesh), the method comprising:
retrieving an initial triangle mesh (Junkins, col. 3, lines 20-25, disclosing obtaining a model and processed into a wire frame mesh format, some meshes may contain triangles, lines 42-47, disclosing accepting a complex mesh data structure as input data and producing a simplified multi-resolution mesh data structure as output data, col. 3, lines 42-51, disclosing edge collapsing of the original mesh to produce a modified mesh, indicating the original mesh or the modified mesh can correspond to an retrieved initial triangle mesh);
constructing an edge list for the initial triangle mesh, wherein the edge list includes physical edges and virtual edges (Junkins, col. 3, lines 28-35, disclosing the mesh may be represented in a data structure comprising an array of vertices, an array of edges, and an array of faces, each edge may be represented as pointers or links to two vertices, lines 47-58, disclosing edge collapsing using surface and volume error metrics to reduce the complex mesh based on edges identified by surface area and volume error metrics to produce a modified mesh, col. 4, lines 34-39, disclosing a cost may be assigned to each edge of the mesh according to a surface area error metric, lines 61-63, disclosing an ordered list of edges is available to use for edge collapse operations, indicating the ordered edge list can correspond to an edge list for the initial triangle mesh, and the edges in the ordered list can be physical edges or virtual edges according to the interpretation of virtual edges above. In addition, col. 6, lines 1-10, disclosing the remaining edges may be sorted according to the newly assigned costs, indicating the ordered list of the remaining edges of the modified mesh can correspond to the edge list including some edges in the original mesh (physical edges) and some edges created by collapsing the edges (therefore not in the original array of faces as the face list, i.e. virtual edges));
decimating the initial triangle mesh to generate a simplified triangle mesh by iteratively collapsing the edges in the edge list, the collapsing being prioritized by a quadric error metric based on a combination of an edge quadric error and an area quadric error (Junkins, col. 3, lines 47-58, disclosing edge collapsing using surface and volume error metrics to reduce the complex mesh based on edges identified by surface area and volume error metrics to produce a modified mesh, then edge collapsing using quadric, surface, and volume error metrics accepts the modified mesh and reduces it using edge collapse technical based on edges identified by quadric, surface area, and volume error metrics to produce simplified multi-resolution mesh, col. 5, lines 40-50, disclosing a cost may be assigned to all edges remaining in the modified mesh using a combination of the quadric, surface and volume error metrics, the cost for removing an edge may be computed as the cost according to the surface area error metric multiplied by a constant value multiplied by the cost of removing the edge according to the quadric error metric, col. 6, lines 1-10, disclosing the remaining edges may be sorted according to the newly assigned costs, the edges may be iteratively collapsed in the combination metric cost order until a desired resolution of the model is reached, indicating the quadric error metric can correspond to an edge quadric error and the surface error metric can correspond to an area quadric error, and the iteratively collapsing edges can correspond to decimating the initial triangle mesh to generate a simplified triangle mesh by iteratively collapsing the edges in the edge list, the collapsing being prioritized by a quadric error metric based on a combination of an edge quadric error and an area quadric error).
However, Junkins does not expressly disclose wherein the decimating comprises maintaining a correspondence map between points on the simplified triangle mesh and corresponding points on the initial triangle mesh; and after the decimating, performing texture transfer based on the correspondence map to generate a texture image for the simplified triangle mesh.
On the other hand, Hoppe discloses wherein the decimating comprises maintaining a correspondence map between points on the simplified triangle mesh and corresponding points on the initial triangle mesh (Hoppe, Figure 1, showing an initial mesh (left) and a simplified mesh (right) obtained by edge collapsing of the initial mesh, Figure 2, showing a correspondence map between points on the simplified triangle mesh and corresponding points on the initial triangle mesh).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Junkins with Hoppe. The suggestion/motivation would have been to allow progressive mesh representation for storing and transmitting arbitrary triangle meshes, as suggested by Hoppe (see Hoppe, Abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
432
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Junkins or Hoppe does not expressly disclose after the decimating, performing texture transfer based on the correspondence map to generate a texture image for the simplified triangle mesh.
On the other hand, Hsu discloses after the decimating, performing texture transfer based on the correspondence map to generate a texture image for the simplified triangle mesh (Hsu, para. [0062], disclosing simplifying a first 3D model to determine a second 3D model by removing vertices in the first 3D model and joining edges connected to the removed vertices to other vertices in the first 3D model, para. [0063], disclosing allocating a texture atlas for the simplified 3D model and fills in the texture atlas for the simplified 3D model, para. [0064], disclosing determining a location on the first 3D model corresponding to the determined location on the second 3D model, determine a color value texture mapped to the first 3D model at the determined location on the first 3D model, and setting the determined color value to the pixel in the texture atlas for the second 3D model, para. [0074], disclosing the pixel color may be copied from the point's texture atlas position for the first three-dimensional model to the pixel in the texture atlas for the second three-dimensional model, para. [0081], disclosing the first 3D model has a texture atlas different than the texture atlas for the second 3D model, para. [0084]-[0088], disclosing the correspondence between the locations of the first 3D model and the second 3D model has been determined, and the color value texture to the pixel in the texture atlas for the second 3D model is determined based on the corresponding color value texture mapped to the first 3D model a the determined location, indicating the texture atlas for the second 3D model can correspond to a texture image for the second 3D model as the simplified triangle mesh is generated by as assigning pixel colors of based on mapping between locations of the first 3D model and the second 3D model as the correspondence map corresponding to performing texture transfer based on the correspondence map).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Junkins in view of Hoppe with Hsu. The suggestion/motivation would have been for generating textured meshes at multiple levels of geometry and texture resolution (see Hsu, para. [0031]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Junkins, Hoppe, and Hsu discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the initial triangle mesh corresponds to a three-dimensional (3D) virtual object in a virtual experience (Junkin, col. 2, lines 42-44, disclosing generating a first mesh from a second mesh representing a scene or object, col. 3, lines 19-25, disclosing obtaining a model to be processed into a wireframe mesh format, Hsu, para. [0004], disclosing a GIS for storing, retrieving, manipulating, and displaying a three-dimensional model including satellite images texture mapped to terrain and using a virtual camera to navigate through a three-dimensional environment, indicating the wireframe mesh of a 3D model can correspond to the initial triangle mesh corresponding to a 3D virtual object in the 3D environment as a virtual experience), and wherein the initial triangle mesh is associated with a texture used to generate the texture image (Hsu, para. [0035], disclosing filling in the texture atlas for the second 3D model using the color value texture mapped to the first 3D model, para. [0042], disclosing a polygonal mesh representing the geometry of a 3D model, FIG. 5, showing a triangle mesh, indicating the color value texture mapped to the first 3D model can correspond to a texture associated with the first 3D model corresponding to the initial triangle mesh used to generate the texture image), with a correspondence between the initial triangle mesh and the texture being stored as a UV map (Hsu, para. [0044], disclosing the texture atlas refers to space in an image in which color values are stored and mapped to a surface of the three-dimensional model, para. [0048], disclosing the source texture atlas of the source mesh being applied to a simplified LOD version of the source mesh, para. [0050], disclosing generating a new texture atlas and texture coordinate assignments for one or more of the simplified LOD version of the source mesh, para. [0051], disclosing storing generated versions of the source mesh at different resolution along with the texture information, para. [0081], disclosing the first 3D model has a texture atlas different than the texture atlas for the second 3D model, indicating the texture coordinate assignments for the source mesh and/or the texture atlas for the first 3D model can correspond to a UV map being stored including a correspondence between the source mesh as the initial triangle mesh and the texture for the source mesh). Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Junkins in view of Hoppe with Hsu. The suggestion/motivation would have been for generating textured meshes at multiple levels of geometry and texture resolution (see Hsu, para. [0031]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Junkins, Hoppe, and Hsu discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising, after performing the texture transfer: applying the texture image to the simplified triangle mesh; and after the applying, causing the 3D virtual object to be displayed in the virtual experience (Hsu, para. [0051], disclosing the source mesh at different resolutions along with the texture information can be stored in a geographic database, and after the appropriate version of the source mesh is generated, the data may be streamed to the client for display in a geographic information environment, a user may manipulate the three-dimensional model and the appropriate resolution of the textured three-dimensional model may be displayed, indicating the texture information for the simplified mesh at a lower resolution of the source mesh can correspond to the texture image and the corresponding textured three-dimensional model can correspond to the result of applying the texture image to the simplified triangle mesh, and the textured three-dimensional model being displayed can correspond to the 3D virtual object represented by the textured 3D model being displayed in the geographic information environment as the virtual experience). Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Junkins in view of Lindahl with Hsu. The suggestion/motivation would have been for generating textured meshes at multiple levels of geometry and texture resolution (see Hsu, para. [0031]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Junkins, Hoppe, and Hsu discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein performing the texture transfer comprises, for each point on the texture image: identifying a point on the simplified triangle mesh associated with the point on the texture image (Hsu, para. [0063], disclosing allocating a texture atlas for the simplified three-dimensional model and filling in the texture atlas for the simplified three-dimensional model, para. [0064], disclosing determining a location on the second 3D model corresponding to a pixel in the texture atlas for the second 3D model); finding, based on the correspondence map, a corresponding point on the initial triangle mesh corresponding to the point on the simplified triangle mesh (Hoppe, Figure 2, showing the correspondences between points on the initial triangle mesh and the simplified triangle mesh, Hsu, para. [0064], disclosing determining a location on the first 3D model corresponding to the determined location on the second 3D model, because Lindahl discloses a mapping structure for mapping points between the simplified mesh and the initial mesh, combining Hoppe and Hsu could find the corresponding point on the first 3D model corresponding to the initial triangle mesh corresponding to the point on the second 3D model corresponding to the simplified triangle mesh based on the correspondence structure of Hoppe as the correspondence map); and sampling color information at the corresponding point on the initial triangle mesh to determine a color for the point on the texture image (Hsu, para. [0064], disclosing determine a color value texture mapped to the first 3D model at the determined location on the first 3D model, and setting the determined color value to the pixel in the texture atlas for the second 3D model). Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Junkins with Hoppe. The suggestion/motivation would have been to allow progressive mesh representation for storing and transmitting arbitrary triangle meshes, as suggested by Hoppe (see Hoppe, Abstract). Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Junkins in view of Hoppe with Hsu. The suggestion/motivation would have been for generating textured meshes at multiple levels of geometry and texture resolution (see Hsu, para. [0031]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Junkins, Hoppe, and Hsu discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising, after constructing the edge list, combining the edge list with initial vertices and triangles of the initial triangle mesh to form a simplicial complex (Junkins, col. 3, lines 28-35, disclosing the mesh may be represented in a data structure comprising an array of vertices, an array of edges, and an array of faces, each edge may be represented as pointers or links to two vertices, col. 5, lines 40-50, disclosing a cost may be assigned to all edges remaining in the modified mesh using a combination of the quadric, surface and volume error metrics, the cost for removing an edge may be computed as the cost according to the surface area error metric multiplied by a constant value multiplied by the cost of removing the edge according to the quadric error metric, col. 6, lines 1-10, disclosing the remaining edges may be sorted according to the newly assigned costs, the edges may be iteratively collapsed in the combination metric cost order until a desired resolution of the model is reached, indicating the edge list, the triangle mesh including the initial vertices and triangles of the initial triangle mesh and/or the first modified mesh can form a simplicial complex because all the faces, edges, and vertices are included in one set of data structure comprising an array of vertices, an array of edges, and an array of faces, each edge may be represented as pointers or links to two vertices).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Junkins, Hoppe, and Hsu discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the iteratively collapsing uses greedy edge collapses to simplify a connectivity of the simplicial complex (Junkins, col. 3, lines 28-35, disclosing the mesh may be represented in a data structure comprising an array of vertices, an array of edges, and an array of faces, each edge may be represented as pointers or links to two vertices, col. 5, lines 40-50, disclosing a cost may be assigned to all edges remaining in the modified mesh using a combination of the quadric, surface and volume error metrics, the cost for removing an edge may be computed as the cost according to the surface area error metric multiplied by a constant value multiplied by the cost of removing the edge according to the quadric error metric, col. 6, lines 1-10, disclosing the remaining edges may be sorted according to the newly assigned costs, the edges may be iteratively collapsed in the combination metric cost order until a desired resolution of the model is reached, indicating the iterative edge collapsing based on the cost according to the error metric can correspond to greedy edge collapses to simplify a connectivity of the simplicial complex because the modified mesh will have simplified connectivity of the data structure corresponding to the simplicial complex dues to reduced number of vertices).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Junkins, Lindahl, and Hsu discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein collapsing an edge comprises: merging a pair of vertices connected by the edge into a new vertex (Hoppe, Figure 1, showing collapsing the edge (Vs, Vt) by merging the pair of vertices Vs and Vt connected by the edge into a new vertex); and updating the edges and faces connected to the pair of vertices by replacing references to each vertex in the pair of vertices with references to the new vertex (Hoppe, Figure 2, showing the vertex correspondence resulted from the edge collapse, where the merged vertices are referred to the new vertex, and edges and faces connected to the merged pair of vertices will have the reference to each vertex in the pair of vertices with the reference to the new vertex).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Junkins with Hoppe. The suggestion/motivation would have been to allow progressive mesh representation for storing and transmitting arbitrary triangle meshes, as suggested by Hoppe (see Hoppe, Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Junkins, Lindahl, and Hsu discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising performing validity checks and rejecting edges that violate the validity checks (Junkins, col. 5, lines 7-21, disclosing a veto of edge collapse by a volume error metric, if the volume error metric detects a defect in the proposed model, the edge may not be collapsed, indicating the edges created by the edge collapsing will be rejected as they violate validity checks performed based on the volume error metric).
Regarding claim 10, it recites similar limitations of claim 1 but in a non-transitory computer-readable medium form. The rationale of claim 1 rejection is applied to reject claim 10. In addition, Junkins discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Junkins, FIG. 3, showing memory storing instructions and data).
Regarding claim 11, it recites similar limitations of claim 4 but in a non-transitory computer-readable medium form. The rationale of claim 4 rejection is applied to reject claim 11. In addition, Junkins discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Junkins, FIG. 3, showing memory storing instructions and data).
Regarding claim 13, it recites similar limitations of claim 6 but in a non-transitory computer-readable medium form. The rationale of claim 6 rejection is applied to reject claim 13. In addition, Junkins discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Junkins, FIG. 3, showing memory storing instructions and data).
Regarding claim 14, it recites similar limitations of claim 7 but in a non-transitory computer-readable medium form. The rationale of claim 7 rejection is applied to reject claim 14. In addition, Junkins discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Junkins, FIG. 3, showing memory storing instructions and data).
Regarding claim 15, it recites similar limitations of claim 8 but in a non-transitory computer-readable medium form. The rationale of claim 8 rejection is applied to reject claim 15. In addition, Junkins discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Junkins, FIG. 3, showing memory storing instructions and data).
Regarding claim 16, it recites similar limitations of claim 1 but in a system form. The rationale of claim 1 rejection is applied to reject claim 16. In addition, Junkins discloses a memory and a processing device (Junkins, FIG. 3, showing memory storing instructions and data and processor).
Regarding claim 17, it recites similar limitations of claim 4 but in a system form. The rationale of claim 4 rejection is applied to reject claim 17. In addition, Junkins discloses a memory and a processing device (Junkins, FIG. 3, showing memory storing instructions and data and processor).
Regarding claim 19, it recites similar limitations of claim 6 but in a system form. The rationale of claim 6 rejection is applied to reject claim 19. In addition, Junkins discloses a memory and a processing device (Junkins, FIG. 3, showing memory storing instructions and data and processor).
Regarding claim 20, it recites similar limitations of claim 7 but in a system form. The rationale of claim 7 rejection is applied to reject claim 20. In addition, Junkins discloses a memory and a processing device (Junkins, FIG. 3, showing memory storing instructions and data and processor).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 12, and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5, none of the prior art references on the record, alone or in combination, discloses wherein constructing the edge list comprises defining the virtual edges by: measuring triangle-to-triangle distances between triangles in the initial triangle mesh by identifying closest points for each pair of triangles in the initial triangle mesh; determining that a distance between the closest points for the pair of triangles is less than a threshold; determining that the closest points are not from same connected components for the pair of triangles; and in response to determining that the distance is less than the threshold and the closest points are not from the same connected components, forming a virtual edge between a vertex pair that is closest to the closest points for the pair of triangles.
Claims 12 and 18 respectively recite similar limitations discussed above with respect to claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication No. 20170161947 A1 to Lindahl et al., which discloses a method and system for converting an existing 3D model into graphical data, where the 3D model has been pre-processed to create a set of individually optimized simplified meshes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIXIA DU whose telephone number is (571)270-5646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am-4:00 pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at 571-272-7794. 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.
/HAIXIA DU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
