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 .
Status of Claims
The amendment filed on 10/27/2025 has been entered. In the amendment, Applicant cancelled claims 1-32 and added new claims 33-52. Currently claims 33-52 are pending.
Claim Objection(s)
Claims 37, 45 and 50-52 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 37 recites the element “the second focus point”. It appears to mean “the second focal point” in view of its parent claim 33. Appropriate correction is necessary in order to eliminate indefinites due to the recitation of element.
Claim 45 appears to depend on claim 44 instead of claim 43. The current claim language recites “the first palette of color” and “the second palette of color”, which are lack of antecedent bases. Having the dependency of the instant claim changed to claim 44 could eliminate the antecedent issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 50 appears to depend on claim 49 instead of claim 43. The current claim language recites “the second threshold time”, which is lack of an antecedent basis. Having the dependency of the instant claim changed to claim 49 could eliminate the antecedent issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 51 appears to depend on claim 48 instead of claim 43. The current claim language recites “the predictable path”, which is lack of an antecedent basis. Having the dependency of the instant claim changed to claim 48 could eliminate the antecedent issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 52 appears to depend on claim 51 instead of claim 43. The current claim language recites “the target destination”, which is lack of an antecedent basis. Having the dependency of the instant claim changed to claim 51 could eliminate the antecedent issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 43 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,481,160 (resulting from Application No. 18/627,219). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 43 of this application
claim 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,481,160
43. A display system for modifying a display mode, the display system comprising:
a display configured to be worn by a user;
a first inward facing sensor configured to image a first eye of the user;
a second inward facing sensor configured to image a second eye of the user; and
processing electronics in communication with the inward-facing sensors and the display, the processing electronics configured to:
present virtual content to the user in a first display mode;
using the first inward-facing sensor, determine that the first eye is closed for longer than a threshold time;
using the second inward-facing sensor, determine that the second eye is closed for longer than the threshold time;
based on the determinations that the first and second eyes of the user are closed for longer than the threshold time, present the virtual content to the user in a second mode.
1a. A head mounted display system for displaying image content to a user, the display system comprising:
a frame;
a wearable display coupled to the frame and configured to present virtual content to first and second eyes of a user;
a speaker coupled to the frame and positioned in proximity to a first or second ear of the user;
a first inward facing camera configured to image the first eye of the user;
a second inward facing camera configured to image the second eye of the user; and
a processing module coupled to the frame and in electronic communication with the first and second inward facing cameras and the wearable display, the processing module comprising one or more processing electronics configured to:
present virtual content to the user on the wearable display in a first configuration;
using the first inward facing camera or the second inward facing camera, determine that the user has performed a gesture; and
based on determining that the user has performed the gesture, present virtual content to the user on the wearable display in a second configuration,
wherein presenting virtual content to the user on the wearable display in a second configuration comprises altering a state of the head mounted display system to modify a manner in which virtual content is presented to the user, and
wherein the manner in which virtual content is presented to the user includes a color palette used to provide color to the virtual content.
8. The display system of claim 1, wherein determining that the user has performed a gesture comprises: determining that at least one of the first eye or the second eye are fully closed for longer than a threshold time.
As can be seen from the above comparison, claim 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,481,160 in combination teaches, in one optional scenario, each feature of claim 43 of this instant application. The scenario includes: an eye gesture comprising both the first eye or the second eye are fully closed for longer than a threshold time as a basis on which the processing electronics is configured to present the virtual content to the user in a second mode.
Claim 44 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,481,160 (resulting from Application No. 18/627,219).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 33-36 and 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Border (US 2016/0116979).
Regarding claim 33, Border teaches a display system (Fig. 1: head-worn display system 102; [0012]: “a head-worn display may include a display panel … and a processor adapted to present the digital content to the display panel … The convergence distance may be adjusted in correspondence to the type of digital content being displayed or a use case associated with augmented reality objects. The convergence may be measured by an eye imaging system of the head-worn display. The eye imaging system images a front perspective of the user's eye”; [0217]: “Aspects of the present invention relate to head-worn computing (“HWC”) systems. HWC involves, in some instances, a system that mimics the appearance of head-worn glasses or sunglasses. The glasses may be a fully developed computing platform, such as including computer displays presented in each of the lenses of the glasses to the eyes of the user. In embodiments, the lenses and displays may be configured to allow a person wearing the glasses to see the environment through the lenses while also seeing, simultaneously, digital imagery, which forms an overlaid image that is perceived by the person as a digitally augmented image of the environment, or augmented reality (“AR”)”) for controlling display of image content, the display system comprising:
an inward-facing sensor ([0012]: “The eye imaging system images a front perspective of the user's eye”; Fig. 9 and [0258]-[0262]);
a display ([0012]-[0015]: “display panel” of head-worn display) configured to be worn by a user; and
processing electronics ([0012]: “a processor adapted to present the digital content to the display panel … The processor may be further adapted to shift the digital content into one of the blank areas to adjust the convergence distance of the digital content and thereby change the perceived distance from the user to the digital content”; [0013]: “The processor may be further adapted to shift the digital content into one of the blank areas to adjust the position of the digital content based on a focus distance of the digital content”) in communication with the inward-facing sensor and the display, the processing electronics configured to:
using the inward-facing sensor, detect a first focal point of the user’s eyes ([0404]: “an ability to identify changes in the focus distance for the user's eye” and “Identifying changes in the focus distance for the user's eye can also be useful for automatic display mode selection (e.g. selecting whether the displayed image should be bright or dim)” indicates detection of a first focal point of the user’s eyes before changes in the focus distance occur; [0486]: “This image alignment can also be done using cameras in place of the user's eyes” indicates two eye cameras included in eye imaging system; [0662]: “In a yet further embodiment, eye cameras are included in the left and right optics modules to determine where the relative direction the user's eyes are looking”);
based on the detected first focal point of the eyes, present first virtual content on the display ([0011]: “Aspects of the present invention relate to methods and systems for the see-through computer display systems with conversion ability from augmented reality (i.e. high see-through transmission through the display) to virtual reality (i.e. low or no see-through transmission through the display)”; [0404]: “Identifying changes in the focus distance for the user's eye can also be useful for automatic display mode selection (e.g. selecting whether the displayed image should be bright or dim)” implies a display mode applied to a displayed image/virtual content before changes in the focus distance; [0410]: “Providing a convergence distance and focus distance for the displayed image that matches the focus distance of the user's eye can be used for displaying images that are watched intensely such as a movie”; Examiner’s Note: “first virtual content” is interpreted as content presented by the display system based on user’s focus distance);
using the inward-facing sensor, detect a second focal point of the user’s eyes ([0404]: “an ability to identify changes in the focus distance for the user's eye” and “Identifying changes in the focus distance for the user's eye can also be useful for automatic display mode selection (e.g. selecting whether the displayed image should be bright or dim)” indicates a second focal point of the user’s eyes resulting from a change in the focus distance); and
based on the detected second focal point of the eyes, modify presentation of the virtual content to display second virtual content ([0404]: “Identifying changes in the focus distance for the user's eye can also be useful for automatic display mode selection (e.g. selecting whether the displayed image should be bright or dim)” indicates modifying presentation in terms of modification of display mode).
Regarding claim 34, Border further teaches the display system of claim 33, wherein first virtual content comprises a static image ([0404]: “Identifying changes in the focus distance for the user's eye can also be useful for automatic display mode selection (e.g. selecting whether the displayed image should be bright or dim)”; [0410]: “Providing a convergence distance and focus distance for the displayed image that matches the focus distance of the user's eye can be used for displaying images that are watched intensely such as a movie”; Examiner’s Note: according to [0404], it includes a scenario in which a static image represented with a certain brightness before a change in focus distance and according to [0410]: it includes a scenario in which a static object is displayed at the first focal point) and wherein the second virtual content comprises animated content ([0282]: “The content may be a movie or a game, for example, and an explosion may happen on the right side of the content, as scripted, and matching the content, a bright flash may be generated by the effects lighting system to create a stronger effect”; [0410]; Examiner’s Note: the prior art cited includes a scenario in which an animated content such as an explosion or bright flash is displayed at the second focal point).
Regarding claim 35, Border teaches the display system of claim 33, wherein the second focal point is disposed at a surface of the display ([0404]: “Identifying changes in the focus distance for the user's eye can also be useful for automatic display mode selection (e.g. selecting whether the displayed image should be bright or dim) by determining whether the user is looking at the displayed image content” (emphasis added) implies a change in focus distance results in a focal point disposed at inner surface of head-worn display worn by a user).
Regarding claim 36, Border teaches the display system of claim 35, wherein the surface of the display comprises an inner surface nearer the user’s eyes than an outer surface (Fig. 1: inner and outer surface of head-worn display system 102).
Regarding claim 39, Border teaches the display system of claim 33, wherein the inward facing sensor comprises a plurality of cameras ([0486]: “This image alignment can also be done using cameras in place of the user's eyes” indicates two eye cameras included in eye imaging system; [0662]: “In a yet further embodiment, eye cameras are included in the left and right optics modules to determine where the relative direction the user's eyes are looking”).
Regarding claim 40, Border teaches the display system of claim 33, wherein a first camera is configured to track an orientation of a first eye of the user and wherein a second camera is configured to track an orientation of a second eye of the user ([0662]: “Alternatively the eye cameras can be used to determine the vergence of the user's eyes and thereby determine the distance that the user is looking at in the see-through view of the surrounding environment”; [0667]: “Images of the user's eyes can be used to determine the viewing direction the user is looking by determining the relative position of the user's pupil within the eyebox or within the field of view of the eye camera 15364. From this information the relative direction that the left and right eyes are looking can be determined. This relative direction information can be used to identify which portion of the displayed image the user is looking at. By comparing the relative direction of the user's left and right eyes within simultaneously captured images, the difference in relative direction between the left and right eyes and the interpupillary distance between the user's eyescan be used to determine the vergence viewing distance that the user is looking at”).
Regarding claim 41, Border teaches the display system of claim 33, wherein the display comprises a liquid crystal display (LCD) ([0233]: “LCD or LCoS displays used in HWC”; [0684]: “The see-through panel may be an OLED or an edge lit LCD”).
Regarding claim 42, Border teaches the display system of claim 33, wherein the processing electronics are configured to display the second content so long as the inward facing sensor detects the second focal point of the eyes ([0404]).
Claims 43, 47-48 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Crow et al. (US 2016/0025971).
Regarding claim 43, Crow teaches a display system (Figs. 1-2: HMD device 104; Fig. 4: computing system 400 that can operate HMD 104 in Figs. 1-2) for modifying a display mode, the display system comprising:
a display (Fig. 2: see-through display 202) configured to be worn by a user;
a first inward facing sensor (Fig. 2: inward facing image sensors 208a; [0024]) configured to image a first eye of the user;
a second inward facing sensor (Fig. 2: inward facing image sensors 208b; [0024]) configured to image a second eye of the user; and
processing electronics (Fig. 2: controller 204; Fig. 4: logic machine 402; [0027]: "The controller 204 may include a logic machine and a storage machine, discussed in more detail below with respect to FIG. 4"; [0060]: "The logic machine may include one or more processors configured to execute software instructions. Additionally or alternatively, the logic machine may include one or more hardware or firmware logic machines configured to execute hardware or firmware instructions") in communication with the inward-facing sensors and the display ([0018]: "The controller 204 may be configured to additionally determine an identity of a physical and/or virtual object at which the wearer is gazing"; [0023]: "the controller 204 may be configured to record multiple eye gaze samples over time based on information detected by the one or more inward facing image sensors 208a, 208b"; [0024]: "the controller 204 may be configured to process the images to track, for each eyelid, an eyelid state"), the processing electronics configured to:
present virtual content to the user in a first display mode (Fig. 1: graphical user interface 110 including holographic television 108 and control elements 106; [0011]: "while FIG. 1 illustrates virtual objects"; [0014]: “Based on the location of the intersection between the user's gaze and the graphical user interface 110 at the time of the intentional eyelid closure, the HMD device 104 determines that the user intended to select the play button, and thus the play button is selected and a media content item begins to play on the holographic television 108”; [0016]: "The see-through display 202 may be configured to visually augment an appearance of a real- world, physical environment to a wearer viewing the physical environment through the transparent display. In one example, the display may be configured to display one or more UI objects on a graphical user interface. In some embodiments, the UI objects presented on the graphical user interface may be virtual objects overlaid in front of the real-world environment”; Examiner’s Note: “first display mode” is interpreted as a static display mode displaying, e.g., a graphical user interface with one or more UI objects);
using the first inward-facing sensor, determine that the first eye is closed for longer than a threshold time; (Fig. 3A-3C: eye gestures including different eyelid states, e.g., eyelid movements, open/closed states, according to [0013]-[0014] and {0035}-[0053]; [0014]: “If the user 102 performs an intentional eyelid closure while gazing at a user interface element, the HMD device 104 may interpret the eyelid closure as a selection input. In a second illustrated interaction 120, user 102 has performed an intentional eyelid closure based on eyelid movement as tracked by the one or more eye-tracking sensors”; [0035]: " method 300 may include, at 334, determining whether the eyelid closure was intended as user input based on eyelid speed and/or eyelid closure duration. For example, an eyelid closure intended as user input may be made more slowly than a blink and/or the closure may last longer than a blink. As such, the eyelid closure may be determined to be intentional if the eyelid closure lasts past a blink duration threshold")
using the second inward-facing sensor, determine that the second eye is closed for longer than the threshold time (Fig. 3A-3C: eye gestures including different eyelid states, e.g., eyelid movements, open/closed states, according to [0013]-[0014] and {0035}-[0053]; [0014]: “If the user 102 performs an intentional eyelid closure while gazing at a user interface element, the HMD device 104 may interpret the eyelid closure as a selection input. In a second illustrated interaction 120, user 102 has performed an intentional eyelid closure based on eyelid movement as tracked by the one or more eye-tracking sensors”; [0035]: " method 300 may include, at 334, determining whether the eyelid closure was intended as user input based on eyelid speed and/or eyelid closure duration. For example, an eyelid closure intended as user input may be made more slowly than a blink and/or the closure may last longer than a blink. As such, the eyelid closure may be determined to be intentional if the eyelid closure lasts past a blink duration threshold");
based on the determinations that the first and second eyes of the user are closed for longer than the threshold time, present the virtual content to the user in a second mode ([0014]: "Based on the location of the intersection between the user's gaze and the graphical user interface 110 at the time of the intentional eyelid closure, the HMD device 104 determines that the user intended to select the play button, and thus the play button is selected and a media content item begins to play on the holographic television 108"; Examiner’s Note: “second display mode” is interpreted as display mode pplaying media content).
Regarding claim 47, Crow further teach the display system of claim 43, wherein the first mode comprises a display of virtual content at a first location on the display ([0014]: “Based on the location of the intersection between the user's gaze and the graphical user interface 110 at the time of the intentional eyelid closure, the HMD device 104 determines that the user intended to select the play button, and thus the play button is selected and a media content item begins to play on the holographic television 108”) and wherein the second mode comprises a display of the virtual content at a second location on the display ([0014]: “Based on the location of the intersection between the user's gaze and the graphical user interface 110 at the time of the intentional eyelid closure, the HMD device 104 determines that the user intended to select the play button, and thus the play button is selected and a media content item begins to play on the holographic television 108”).
Regarding claim 48, Crow further teach the display system of claim 43, wherein the processing electronics are configured, in the second mode, to display a movement of the virtual content along a predictable path (Fig. 1: second illustrated interaction 120; [0014]: “Based on the location of the intersection between the user's gaze and the graphical user interface 110 at the time of the intentional eyelid closure, the HMD device 104 determines that the user intended to select the play button, and thus the play button is selected and a media content item begins to play on the holographic television 108”).
Regarding claim 51, Crow further teach the display system of claim 48, wherein the predictable path comprises a path that appears to move toward a target destination (Fig. 1: second illustrated interaction 120; [0014]: “Based on the location of the intersection between the user's gaze and the graphical user interface 110 at the time of the intentional eyelid closure, the HMD device 104 determines that the user intended to select the play button, and thus the play button is selected and a media content item begins to play on the holographic television 108”: Examiner’s Note: “a target destination” is not defined in the current claim language, the prior art includes a scenario in which the display media content item is moving to some destination).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Border (US 2016/0116979) in view of Tamaoki et al. (US 2017/0277260).
Regarding claim 37, Border does not further teach the display system of claim 33, wherein the processing electronics are configured to modify presentation of the virtual content to display the second virtual content based on a minimum focus time during which the user’s eyes are focused on the second focus point.
The differentiating limitation indicates use of a defined eye gesture/input, i.e., a minimum focus time, by the user’s eyes, on an intended focal point to provide a command.The technique is not new, however.
Tamaoki, for instance, teaches in [0377] using an eye input with a minimum focus time on an intended focal point (i.e., push button object OB1) to provide a command (i.e., locking the push button object OB1).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to modify the technique of Border with Tamaoki’s technique using an eye input with a minimum focus time during which the user’s eyes are focused on the second focus point to provide a command to modify presentation of the virtual content to display the second virtual content.
The motivation/suggestion would have been to achieve a reliable eye gesture input mitigating an error of an unintended input.
Regarding claim 38, Tamaoki further teaches the display system of claim 37, wherein the minimum focus time is greater than 0.5 s ([0377]).
Claims 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crow et al. (US 2016/0025971) in view of Torch (US Patent No. 10,039,445).
Regarding claim 46, Crow does not further teach the display system of claim 43, wherein the threshold time is at least 0.5 s.
The differentiating feature defines a specific eye gesture with a minimum eye closure time requirement.
However, it is not new in the related art defining a specific eye gesture by assigning a minimum eye closure time.
Torch, for instance, teaches in Col. 12, ll. 59-61 defining a eye gesture including a threshold eye closure time that is long enough to be distinguished from a normal eye blink.
Before the effective filing date of time, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to combine Torch’s teaching with Crow’s technique such that a threshold eye closure time is long enough to be distinguished from a normal eye blink and ensure reliability of using the eye gesture. As for setting the threshold time to be at least 0.5 s, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice in a known range.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 45, 49-50 and 52 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2019/0129179 by Imoue teaches in [0169] an eye gesture input being “an action of closing both eyes for a predetermined time period”.
US 2018/0314416 by Powderly et al. discloses in Fig. 21A and [0334] displaying color palette to indicate different system functions, which, however, is not associated with an eye gesture.
US 2018/0307303 by Powderly et al. discloses in [0180] changing a focal point of eyes to move a virtual object to a target location.
US 2018/0003991 by Guillaumee et al. teaches in the entire discloser projecting an virtual object according to a change in eye focus from a first focus plane to a second focus plane.
US 2017/0069135 by Komaki et al. teaches in [0116] selecting a data item in the line of sight if the eye motion is closing eyes (similar to a click of a computer mouse.
US 2016/0133170 by Fateh teaches in [0108] “When the user's eyes move from a first focal point to a second focal point (e.g., focal points A and B of FIG. 8), the resolution of the digital content between the two focal points may be reduced”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUEMEI ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:30 pm-6:00 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, Benjamin Lee can be reached at 571-272-2963. 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.
/XUEMEI ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights