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 .
Amendment
The Response, filed on October 31, 2025, has been received and made of record. In response to the Non-Final Office Action dated August 7, 2025, claims 19, 22 and 29-31 have been amended and claims 20, 23, 25-28 and 32 have been cancelled. No new claims have been added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (lDS) submitted on August 21, 2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the objection to claim 23, Applicant has cancelled the claim. Therefore, the outstanding objection to claim 23 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 19, 20 and 25-28, Applicant has amended the claims to correct the subject matter identified as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 19, 20 and 25-28 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 22, 23 and 29-32, Applicant has amended the claims to correct the subject matter identified as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 22, 23 and 29-32 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 19, 20 and 25-28, Applicant has cancelled the recitations of “wherein the first image is output to a first display,” and “wherein the second image is output to a second display…” Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 19, 20 and 25-28 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 22, Applicant has cancelled the recitations of “a rear view display device”. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 22 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 22, Applicant has cancelled the recitations of “a parking assistance display device”. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 22 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 29, 30 and 31, Applicant has amended the preamble to correspond to claim 22, from which they depend. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 29, 30 and 31 are withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 32, Applicant has cancelled the claim. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 32 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejections of claim 20, 23 and 25-27, Applicant has cancelled the claims. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejections of claims 20, 23, and 25-27 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejections of claim 29, Applicant is only found to provide “Applicant has revised claims 29-31 to be directed to a “vehicle camera apparatus system.” (Remarks, p. 8). The amendment to the preamble, i.e., vehicle camera apparatus system, does not address the outstanding issue of the claim being of improper form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. The claim recites “[a] vehicle camera apparatus system according to claim 22, further comprising the first display is a display being used as a mirror.” The claim is not found to further structurally limit previously introduced limitation (i.e., “the first display”) originally introduced in independent claim 22. [A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). The intended use of “the first display” “as a mirror” would not further limit the claimed subject matter of claim 22 from which claim 29 depends and inherits all limitations therefrom. Based on at least the above, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejections of claim 20, Applicant is only found to provide “Applicant has revised claims 29-31 to be directed to a “vehicle camera apparatus system.” (Remarks, p. 8). The amendment to the preamble, i.e., vehicle camera apparatus system, does not address the outstanding issue of the claim being of improper form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. The claim recites “[a] vehicle camera apparatus system according to claim 22, further comprising the first display is a display being used as a center mirror.” The claim is not found to further structurally limit previously introduced limitation (i.e., “the first display”) originally introduced in independent claim 22. [A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). The intended use of “the first display” “as a center mirror” would not further limit the claimed subject matter of claim 22 from which claim 30 depends and inherits all limitations therefrom. Based on at least the above, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejections of claim 31, Applicant is only found to provide “Applicant has revised claims 29-31 to be directed to a “vehicle camera apparatus system.” (Remarks, p. 8). The amendment to the preamble, i.e., vehicle camera apparatus system, does not address the outstanding issue of the claim being of improper form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. The claim recites “[a] vehicle camera apparatus system according to claim 22, further comprising the second display is a display being used as for a parking assist function.” The claim is not found to further structurally limit previously introduced limitation (i.e., “the second display”) originally introduced in independent claim 22. [A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). The intended use of “the second display” “for a parking assist function” would not further limit the claimed subject matter of claim 22 from which claim 31 depends and inherits all limitations therefrom. Based on at least the above, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner stand behind the teachings of the art.
Nevertheless, Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
* * * * *
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 16 recites “a first-processor”, but line 18 recites “the first processor”. Please select either the hyphenated version (“first-processor”) or the non-hyphenated version (first processor”) to employ throughout the entire claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19, 22 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19, the independent claim recites “wherein a first image and a second image are defined on the image surface” (line 7). This limitation was not found to be described in the specification, as required by the written description requirement. The imaging surface 14a was not found to be described in the specification as having any new, novel or unique structural configuration or control functionality. In view of the above, the claim is rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 19, the independent claim recites “wherein the first image and the second image fall completely within the imaging surface,” (lines 12-13). This limitation was not found to be described in the specification, as required by the written description requirement. The specification was only found to describe imaging regions within the imaging surface, as in “the entire imaging region G2 falls withing the imaging surface 14a” (Spec., [0046]). In view of the above, the claim is rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 19, the independent claim recites “a first-processor” (line 16). This limitation was not found to be described in the specification, as required by the written description requirement. The specification was only found to describe a “first processing unit” (e.g., [0049]). In view of the above, the claim is rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 19, the independent claim recites “a second processor” (line 17). This limitation was not found to be described in the specification, as required by the written description requirement. The specification was only found to describe a “second processing unit” (e.g., [0050]). In view of the above, the claim is rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 19, the independent claim recites “a first output interface” (line 18). This limitation was not found to be described in the specification, as required by the written description requirement. The specification was only found to describe a “first output unit” (e.g., [0049]). In view of the above, the claim is rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 19, the independent claim recites “a second output interface” (line 20). This limitation was not found to be described in the specification, as required by the written description requirement. The specification was only found to describe a “second output unit” (e.g., [0050]). In view of the above, the claim is rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 19, the independent claim recites “a first output interface which receives a processed first image from the first processor and outputs the processed first image to a first output” (lines 18-19). This limitation was not found to be described in the specification, as required by the written description requirement. The specification was only found to describe a “a mirror image generated in the imaging region G1 of the imaging surface 14a of the imaging device 14 is image-processed by the first processing unit 15a, output by the first output unit 16a, and displayed by the first display unit 20a.” (e.g., [0049]). In view of the above, the claim is rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 19, the independent claim recites “a second output interface which receives a processed second image from the second processor and outputs the processed second image to a second output” (lines 20-21). This limitation was not found to be described in the specification, as required by the written description requirement. The specification was only found to describe a “a near-side image generated in the imaging region G2 of the imaging surface 14a of the imaging device 14 is image-processed by the second processing unit 15b, output by the second output unit 16b, and displayed by the second display unit 20b.” (e.g., [0050]). In view of the above, the claim is rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 22, the independent claim, from which claims 29-31 depend and inherit all limitations therefrom, recites “wherein a first image and a second image are defined on the image surface” (line 8). This limitation was not found to be described in the specification, as required by the written description requirement. The imaging surface 14a was not found to be described in the specification as having any new, novel or unique structural configuration or control functionality. In view of the above, claims 22 and 29-31 are rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 22, the independent claim, from which claims 29-31 depend and inherit all limitations therefrom, recites “wherein the first image and the second image fall completely within the imaging surface,” (lines 13-14). This limitation was not found to be described in the specification, as required by the written description requirement. The specification was only found to describe imaging regions within the imaging surface, as in “the entire imaging region G2 falls withing the imaging surface 14a” (Spec., [0046]). In view of the above, claims 22 and 29-31 are rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 22, the independent claim, from which claims 29-31 depend and inherit all limitations therefrom, recites “a first processor” (line 19). This limitation was not found to be described in the specification, as required by the written description requirement. The specification was only found to describe a “first processing unit” (e.g., [0049]). In view of the above, claims 22 and 29-31 are rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 22, the independent claim, from which claims 29-31 depend and inherit all limitations therefrom, recites “a second processor” (line 20). This limitation was not found to be described in the specification, as required by the written description requirement. The specification was only found to describe a “second processing unit” (e.g., [0050]). In view of the above, claims 22 and 29-31 are rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 22, the independent claim, from which claims 29-31 depend and inherit all limitations therefrom, recites “a first output interface” (line 21). This limitation was not found to be described in the specification, as required by the written description requirement. The specification was only found to describe a “first output unit” (e.g., [0049]). In view of the above, claims 22 and 29-31 are rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 22, the independent claim, from which claims 29-31 depend and inherit all limitations therefrom, recites “a second output interface” (line 23). This limitation was not found to be described in the specification, as required by the written description requirement. The specification was only found to describe a “second output unit” (e.g., [0050]). In view of the above, claims 22 and 29-31 are rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 22, the independent claim, from which claims 29-31 depend and inherit all limitations therefrom, recites “wherein the first image is output to a first display,” as well as recites “a first processor which receives the first image from the imaging device” and “a first output interface which receives a processed first image from the first processor and outputs the processed first image to the first display”. The original specification is not found to teach or describe the first image being output to a first display, as well as the processed first image being output to the first display (i.e., two distinct outputs to the first display). The closest passage found from the specification only describes a “a near-side image generated in the imaging region G1 of the imaging surface 14a of the imaging device 14 is image-processed by the first processing unit 15a, output by the first output unit 16a, and displayed by the first display unit 20a.” (e.g., [0049]). In view of the above, claims 22 and 29-31 are rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 22, the independent claim, from which claims 29-31 depend and inherit all limitations therefrom, recites “wherein the second image is output to a second display different from the first display,” as well as recites “a second processor which receives the second image from the imaging device” and “a second output interface which receives a processed second image from the second processor and outputs the processed second image to the second display”. The original specification is not found to teach or describe the first image being output to a first display, as well as the processed first image being output to the first display (i.e., two distinct outputs to the second display).The closest passage found from the specification only describes a “a near-side image generated in the imaging region G2 of the imaging surface 14a of the imaging device 14 is image-processed by the second processing unit 15b, output by the second output unit 16b, and displayed by the second display unit 20b.” (e.g., [0050]). In view of the above, claims 22 and 29-31 are rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 19, 22 and 29-31 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.
Regarding claim 19, the independent claim recites “wherein a first image and a second image are defined on the imaging surface”. It is unclear what is meant by this passage, as it is not found to further limit the structural device, and as images are electrical products of image sensors, after image capture, and individually images are generally associated with a single instance of time or capture operation. The specification is not found by the Examiner to discuss or clarify “wherein a first image and a second image are defined on the imaging surface”. Absent clarity, one skilled in the art would not be put on full and clear notice regarding the metes and bounds of the claim. In light of the above, the claim is 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.
Regarding claim 22, the independent claim, from which claims 29-31 depend and inherit all limitations therefrom, recites “wherein a first image and a second image are defined on the imaging surface” (line 8). It is unclear what is meant by this passage, as it is not found to further limit the structural device, and as images are electrical products of image sensors, after image capture, and individually images are generally associated with a single instance of time or capture operation. The specification is not found by the Examiner to discuss or clarify “wherein a first image and a second image are defined on the imaging surface”. Absent clarity, one skilled in the art would not be put on full and clear notice regarding the metes and bounds of the claim. In light of the above, the claim is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. - Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites “[a] vehicle camera apparatus system according to claim 22, further comprising the first display is a display being used as a mirror.” The claim is not found to further structurally limit previously introduced limitation (i.e., “the first display”) originally introduced in independent claim 22. [A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). The intended use of “the first display” “as a mirror” would not further limit the claimed subject matter of claim 22 from which claim 29 depends and inherits all limitations therefrom.
Regarding claim 30, the claim recites “[a] vehicle camera apparatus system according to claim 22, further comprising the first display is a display being used as a center mirror.” The claim is not found to further structurally limit previously introduced limitation (i.e., “the first display”) originally introduced in independent claim 22. [A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). The intended use of “the first display” “as a center mirror” would not further limit the claimed subject matter of claim 22 from which claim 30 depends and inherits all limitations therefrom.
Regarding claim 31, the claim recites “[a] vehicle camera apparatus system according to claim 22, further comprising the second display is being used for a parking assist function.” The claim is not found to further structurally limit previously introduced limitation (i.e., “the second display”) originally introduced in independent claim 22. [A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). The intended use of “the first display” “for a parking assist function” would not further limit the claimed subject matter of claim 22 from which claim 31 depends and inherits all limitations therefrom.
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Application No. 2007-008200 to Imoto (machine translation previously provided) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0170814 to Kuchinomachi et al. (hereinafter “Kuchinomachi”).
Regarding claim 19, Imoto teaches a vehicle camera apparatus (e.g., [0001]), comprising a lens unit (e.g., fig. 3, element 32A; [0016]), and an imaging device (e.g., fig. 3, element 31A; [0015]) having an imaging surface that extends along an in-plane direction orthogonal to an optical axis of the lens unit (e.g., fig. 3), wherein a center of the imaging surface (e.g., fig. 3, indicator 31C) has an upward vertical offset in the in-plane direction from an intersection of the optical axis with the imaging surface (e.g., fig. 3), wherein a first image and a second image are defined on the imaging surface (e.g., figs. 9 and 11; the Examiner notes that an image is the product of data captured by an image sensor, and is distinct from an imaging region of a sensor that captures image data, the later imaging region being found to be discussed in the specification; also see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, supra), wherein the optical axis passes through the first image (e.g., fig. 4; figs. 9 and 11; [0018]), wherein the optical axis does not pass through the second image (e.g., fig. 4; figs. 9 and 11; [0018]), wherein the first image and the second image fall completely within the imaging surface (e.g., figs. 9 and 11; light outside of a structural imaging surface cannot create image sensor images; also see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, supra), and wherein the lower boundary of the first image is closer to the bottom of the imaging surface than the lower boundary of the second image (e.g., figs. 3 and 11). Imoto, however, has not been found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the second image contains the center of the imaging surface, wherein the first image does not contain the center of the imaging surface, a first processor which receives the first image from the imaging device, a second processor which receives the second image from the imaging device, a first output interface which receives a processed first image from the first processor and outputs the processed first image to a first output, and a second output interface which receives a processed second image from the second processor and outputs the processed second image to a second output.
Nevertheless, as Imoto teaches that an image sensor can be shifted in relation to an attachment angle to capture a desired optical area, an adjustment wherein an area of the image sensor associated with a second desired image view contains the center of the imaging surface and wherein the first desired image view does not contain the center of the imaging surface is considered merely a matter of design choice; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the sensor of Imoto to a necessary position in order to capture a desired optical area, with the center of the imaging surface location being a product of that position and desired optical area.
Further to this, Kuchinomachi teaches a camera apparatus that includes a first processor which receives the first image from the imaging device (e.g., fig. 4, processor 21; [0059], [0064-67]), a second processor which receives the second image from the imaging device (e.g., fig. 4, processor 41; [0059], [0064-67]), a first output interface which receives a processed first image from the first processor and outputs the processed first image to a first output (e.g., fig. 4, output of 21), and a second output interface which receives a processed second image from the second processor and outputs the processed second image to a second output (e.g., fig. 4, output of 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Kuchinomachi with the apparatus as taught by Imoto, in order to process the image data faster.
The Examiner notes that the recited first image and second image of claim 19 are not structural in nature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0005225 to Clark et al. teaches an image sensor in which selected areas of the image sensor can be read out.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0206238 to Kawai teaches a split readout sensor.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY C VIEAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Increased Flex.
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, Lin Ye can be reached at 571-272-7372. 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.
/GARY C VIEAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638