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 .
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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 3/2/2026.
Amendments to claims 1, 3, 11-13, filed 3/2/2026, are acknowledged and accepted. Due to the amendments, the previous claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are now withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because much of the Remarks simply rehash/repackage earlier arguments relying on unjustifiably narrow readings of the prior art and/or claim language, but do not properly address the grounds for rejection as established and explained across the previous Office Actions and in the recent interview. As a result, much of the arguments remain unpersuasive, and they largely consist of statements that have been considered/addressed previously and/or lack relevant support. Specific issues are as follows:
Applicant first argues a partially amended aspect of claim 1, stating that
“Inomata does not disclose a fine-driving section located within a deceleration period of a drive pattern […]” – Remarks pg. 12.
However, as similarly noted in earlier Office Actions, the argument is largely irrelevant because it disregards the fact that Sato was relied on, not Inomata, to address the fine-driving features. Applicant also overlooks the fact that Sato certainly establishes such fine-driving in a (newly amended) deceleration period, as indicated by the deceleration curve (D) that was referenced in each of the previous Rejections (see, e.g., ¶ 19 of the 12/2/2025 Non-Final Rejection).
Since the current argument appears to rehash much of the same material and commit many of the same errors identified in previous Remarks, Applicant is again advised that continued misattribution of Rejection details towards the wrong references/teachings do not facilitate prosecution efforts. Refer again also to ¶ 6C of the 12/2/2025 Non-Final Rejection, where Examiner had similarly identified the repetitive and ineffective nature of such arguments – improprieties of which have continued to persist in Applicant’s Remarks throughout prosecution.
Applicant then argues that
“Inomata does not teach changing a drive pattern […]” – Remarks pgs. 12-13,
but only supports this by again rehashing/repackaging old arguments asserting a more narrow/ improper reading of Inomata alone, and by invoking irrelevant details while continuing to dismiss (1) the actual rejection of record that are based on the combination of Inomata and Sato, (2) Examiner’s earlier response(s) given to address similar arguments for the limitations at issue, and (3) Examiner’s explanation given during the recent interview. See, for example, ¶ 6D of the 12/2/2025 Non-Final Rejection, where Examiner had not only addressed such repeatedly raised issues, but had similarly cautioned Applicant against such problematic argumentative approaches that were reflected in their earlier Remarks. Despite this, Applicant continues with such improprieties that remain unconvincing and do not advance prosecution.
Next, Applicant shifts focus to Sato, first addressing a newly amended limitation and declaring that
“G (mm/s) of Sato is not the lowest speed that can be specified as a drive speed” – Remarks pg. 15.
Applicant makes no convincing case for this conclusory statement, however, and is thus reminded that Sato expressly identifies/specifies speed G as a minimum, i.e. a lowest speed for the focusing operation – a detail which Applicant does acknowledge just one sentence prior to the argument quoted above
(“G (mm/s) is explicitly defined as the minimum […] movement speed required for TV-AF” – Remarks pg. 15).
Despite this, Applicant presents their argument without properly considering or addressing how it makes any practical sense to specify a speed even lower than what Sato expressly identified as their minimum [target] speed G, nor does Applicant ever express what they believe this would even entail. Instead, Applicant’s argument – that speed G is not the lowest specifiable speed – appears to remain largely unsupported and unpersuasive. If there is any actual evidence, perhaps, that a speed lower than G is specified somewhere for the relevant operations, Applicant is free to present this information. Applicant has yet to provide any such proper support, however.
Applicant’s remaining attacks on Sato are similarly unpersuasive because they continue to be presented as mere declarations without much in the way of any proper evidentiary support – or they continue to rely on overly narrow, selective reading of Sato and/or the claim language.
For example, Applicant, arguing a partially amended aspect of claim 1, states
“Sato's control modes […] are independent of the deceleration curve [… such that] Sato does not disclose or suggest a drive pattern having a fine-driving section within a deceleration period”
This is purely selective interpretation/rationale, however. Sato’s drive trajectories/patterns are no more “independent” from each other than Applicant’s own, yet Applicant has conveniently elected not to hold their own claimed features up to the same scrutiny, standards, or restrictions that they attempt to hold Sato to. Examiner thus finds such argument to be highly improper, logically inconsistent, and unpersuasive – holding that Sato’s deceleration curve D directly undercuts the argued limitation above (as also noted in ¶ 6 above, addressing Applicant’s arguments improperly directed towards Inomata).
Next, Applicant argues that
“Sato relies on repeated target-position updates […] repeated micro-pulse driving. Neither involves continuous driving at G (mm/s), or at any speed corresponding to the claimed minimum drive speed”.
The argument is not persuasive, however, as it lacks any meaningful technical discussion. Applicant simply invokes a pair of technical labels without any further elaboration on their relevance or any explanation as to what specifically disqualifies the basic notion of a minimum drive speed. This accomplishes little more than removing the actual burden of constructing a clear and proper argument before arriving at a non sequitur – leading Applicant to the unsupported conclusion that
“Sato does not teach or suggest the features of continuously driving the focus lens at the minimum drive speed in the fine-driving section” – Remarks pg. 15.
This simply dismisses Sato’s direct disclosure of driving the lens to maintain a (pseudo) minimum target speed of G mm/S – a detail which Applicant only acknowledges in the paragraph immediately following the arguments quoted above
(“this is achieved by changing the drive target position and the drive command output timing to keep the speed within the G± range” – Remarks pg. 15).
It would thus appear that this rather significant point was abruptly discarded for the sake of the current argument or, at the very least, interpreted in an untenably restrictive manner – though Applicant has taken no steps to provide any particular details/descriptions that would properly support the argument quoted above, or even aid in understanding their specific position. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments remain wholly unpersuasive due to such oversight, improper argumentation, and lack of addressable substance.
Regarding a newly amended limitations of claim 1, Applicant states
“Sato also does not presuppose that the drive pattern includes an acceleration period, a constant-speed period, and a deceleration period”.
However, Applicant is advised that the new limitations is already known from Inomata, not Sato, who clearly provides drive patterns with all three signed possibilities for accelerations. See FIG. 7B, as cited in the updated rejection below.
Next, Applicant goes on to make some additional declarations, though these strangely appear to repeat the same arguments already raised earlier in the Remarks, e.g.
‘nor does [Sato] disclose control assuming that there is a "fine-driving section" within the deceleration period requiring a drive speed less than a minimum drive speed that is a lowest speed that can be specified as a drive speed for the focus lens and is set in advance.’ – Remarks pg. 15
‘Furthermore, Applicant submits that the feature of "continuously driving at the minimum drive speed in the fine-driving section" of the claimed invention differs structurally from Sato's’ – Remarks pg. 16
It is not clear why Applicant would simply restate what appear to be largely bare/empty declarations at different locations in their Remarks – especially when these statements do not appear to be organized in any intentional manner, nor accompanied by much more in the way of addressable substance. Nonetheless, Applicant may refer back to ¶s 8+10 and 11 above for Examiner’s counterpoints to what appear to remain as unconvincing/unsubstantiated statements.
Lastly, regarding the argument that
“Sato does not disclose comparing times required to reach the in-focus position under two different fine-driving scenarios determining whether a difference is within a predetermined permissible range, or modifying drive characteristics of a deceleration period to satisfy such a criterion” – Remarks pg. 16,
Applicant is again reminded of the response given in ¶ 6D of the 12/2/2025 Non-Final Rejection, where Examiner had explained how the combination of Inomata and Sato’s teachings apply to and render obvious the general concept of “comparing times […]”, as well as the selecting/ changing the drive pattern based on such comparison/criterion.
Considering the totality of evidence that is already on record – reminders of which have been freely provided throughout both the current Response and across previous Office Actions – what remains to be addressed is the mere (and newly amended) aspect of “modifying drive characteristics of a deceleration period”. With respect to this feature, Examiner finds that Sato provides sufficient disclosure – i.e. by virtue of Sato’s switching of drive modes under appropriate conditions. One needs simply to compare between the alternative trajectories/ patterns of deceleration curve D and of the pseudodriving (i.e. at minimum [target] speed G); see Sato’s FIGs. 3-4. Examiner thus finds that the amended/argued limitation does not adequately distinguish the recited claim concepts from those found in the prior art – at least not when the entire body of references are given due and proper consideration as a whole.
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 1-13 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 1, lines 10-11 recite
“a drive speed less than a minimum drive speed that is a lowest speed that can be specified as a drive speed for the focus lens and is set in advance”,
which is grammatically ambiguous, unclear, and imprecise due to poor construction with stacked modifiers that obscure the limitation’s meaning and render the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, the limitation will be read to mean that the drive speed is less than the minimum drive speed, and that the minimum drive speed is specifiable for the focus lens and set in advance.
Regarding claim 4, lines 2-3 recite “the difference exceeds the permissible range even after changing the drive pattern”, which directly contradicts lines 15-20 of claim 1 reciting “the control unit changes the drive pattern […] so that the difference falls within the predetermined permissible range”. For examination purposes, it is understood that claim 1’s drive pattern change is only made in an attempt to produce differences within the permissible range.
Regarding claims 11-13, line 13-14 of claim 11, lines 10-11 of claim 12, and lines 9-10 of claim 13 each recite
“a drive speed that is a lowest speed that can be specified as a drive speed for the focus lens and is less than a minimum drive speed”
which, in addition to the issues identified for the corresponding limitation of claim 1 above, is further unclear due to an apparently self-referencing definition (“a drive speed that is […] a drive speed”), and because it is also provides “a drive speed” that is “less than a minimum drive speed” which is rather confusing. For examination purposes the quoted limitation shall be read in the same manner as the corresponding limitation on lines 10-11 of claim 1 addressed above.
Claims not specifically addressed in the rejection above inherit the indefiniteness of the claim from which they depend.
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.
Regarding claims 1 and 11-13, Inomata discloses a focus adjustment device (focus drive control unit 34) that controls driving of a focus lens (focus lens 211) included in a lens unit during moving image shooting (see FIG. 1; ¶s 20-22, 32), the focus adjustment device (focus drive control unit 34) comprising one or more processors that execute a program (see ¶ 85) and thereby function as:
an obtainment unit that obtains a drive pattern determined in advance for driving the focus lens (focus lens 211) to an in-focus position (focus drive control unit 34 generates/stores drive patterns associated with focus lens motion in drive pattern storage unit 33, and acquires/obtains such predetermined drive patterns from the drive pattern storage unit 33 to drive the focus lens; see FIG. 1, ¶s 6-7, 10, and 31-32); and
a control unit that controls the driving of the focus lens (focus lens 211) (focus drive control unit 34 drives the focus lens; see ¶s 6-7, 10 and 36),
wherein the focus lens (focus lens 211) is driven through an acceleration period, a constant-speed period, and a deceleration period of the driving pattern to reach the in-focus position (Pf) (see CVd in FIG. 7b),
wherein the control unit (focus drive control unit 34) changes the drive pattern if a difference between times required to drive the focus lens (focus lens 211) to the in-focus position (i) when continuously driving the focus lens (focus lens 211) at the minimum driving speed in the fine-driving section and (ii) when driving the focus lens (focus lens 211) according to the drive pattern in the fine-driving section is not within a predetermined permissible range, so that the difference falls within the predetermined permissible range (Examiner takes the position that the predetermined allowable range for this time difference is an open criteria which may be set arbitrarily – for example, according to a user’s preference – in advance) (Note: continuous driving of the focus lens at the minimum drive speed is established by Sato below. Note also that Inomata discloses (¶ 46, FIG. 7) different drive patterns – for example, those with constant speed, perhaps even corresponding to Applicant’s minimum drive speed or otherwise – may be selected to change focusing times according to user’s preference. Further, drive pattern storage unit 33 stores not only predetermined drive patterns, but also “information for generating the drive pattern” – including that associated with “constant speed change” – which is then retrieved by focus drive control unit 34 to perform autofocus operation (¶s 31-32)).
Inomata does not disclose
changing the drive pattern by modifying drive characteristics of the deceleration period
wherein if the drive pattern has a fine-driving section in the deceleration period in which it is necessary to drive the focus lens at a drive speed less than a minimum drive speed that is a lowest speed that can be specified as a drive speed for the focus lens and is set in advance, and it is determined that the lens unit is not suitable for fine driving of the focus lens, the control unit continuously drives the focus lens at the minimum drive speed in the fine-driving section without performing fine driving.
Inomata and Sato are related as focus adjustors for lens devices.
Sato discloses
changing the drive pattern by modifying drive characteristics of the deceleration period (i.e. by maintaining minimum drive target speed (G) instead of following deceleration curve (D))
wherein if the drive pattern has a fine-driving section in the deceleration period (deceleration curve (D)) in which it is necessary to drive the focus lens (focus lens group 203) at a drive speed less than a minimum drive speed that is a lowest speed that can be specified as a drive speed for the focus lens (focus lens group 203) and is set in advance (deceleration curve (D) extending to ≲ minimum drive target speed (G)), and it is determined that the lens unit (lens group 203) is not suitable for fine driving (i.e. with a fine-driving “normal” TV-AF mode) of the focus lens (focus lens group 203), the control unit (camera CPU 111) continuously drives the focus lens (focus lens group 203) at the minimum drive speed in the fine-driving section
(see ¶s 38-49, 53-54, 59-60; FIGs. 1-4).
Inomata and Akio are related as focus adjustors for lens devices.
Akio discloses driving the focus lens without performing fine driving (¶ 6: “coarse adjustment is performed by focus detection using the phase difference method”).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of Inomata and Sato so that lenses incompatible with fine-driving can be driven at a preset minimum speed to allow for reduction of intermittent focus delays (Abstract).
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine the teachings of Inomata and Akio in order to implement coarse operations that can accommodate wide defocus ranges (Akio ¶ 3).
Further regarding claim 11, Inomata discloses a defocus amount obtainment unit (defocus detection unit 32) that obtains a defocus amount of a lens unit that is mounted; and a focus adjustment device (focus drive control unit 34) that drives a focus lens (focus lens 211) included in the lens unit based on the defocus amount (see FIG. 1 and ¶s 30-32).
Further regarding claim 13, modified Inomata discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that causes a computer to function as a focus adjustment device (Inomata discloses recording media for temporary or permanent storage of computer programs that execute the processes of their disclosure, including those associated with focus control; see ¶ 86).
Regarding claim 2, modified Inomata discloses the focus adjustment device according claim 1.
Sato further discloses wherein if the drive pattern has the fine-driving section and it is determined that the lens unit is suitable for fine driving of the focus lens, the control unit repeatedly executes fine driving of the focus lens (focus lens group 203) in the fine-driving section. (Camera CPU 111 determines whether attached lens device 200 is compatible with a fine-driving (TV-AF) mode. If compatible/suitable, lens device 200 continues to be driven in this fine-driving mode according to an iterative loop that repeats until focus is achieved. See ¶s 35, 38, and 53-56)
Regarding claim 3, modified Inomata discloses the focus adjustment device according claim 1.
Inomata further discloses wherein in a case where the control unit (focus drive control unit 34) changes the drive pattern, the control unit (focus drive control unit 34) continuously drives the focus lens (focus lens 211) at the minimum drive speed from a point in time based on the drive pattern after the change so that the difference is within the permissible range. (Note: continuous driving of the focus lens at the minimum drive speed has been earlier established in regards to claim 1. Note also that Inomata discloses (¶ 46, FIG. 7) different drive patterns – for example, those with constant speed, perhaps even corresponding to Applicant’s minimum drive speed or otherwise – may be selected to change focusing times according to user’s preference. Further, drive pattern storage unit 33, cited above in regards to claim 1, stores not only predetermined drive patterns, but also “information for generating the drive pattern” – including that associated with “constant speed change” – which is then retrieved by focus drive control unit 34 to perform autofocus operation (¶s 31-32))
Regarding claim 4, modified Inomata discloses the focus adjustment device according to claim 3.
Sato further discloses wherein if the difference exceeds the permissible range even after changing the drive pattern or if the lens unit (lens device 200) does not support a drive command specifying a drive speed of the focus lens (focus lens group 203), in the fine-driving section, the control unit controls the driving of the focus lens (focus lens group 203) by transmitting a drive command specifying a drive amount that is not less than a minimum drive amount of the focus lens (focus lens group 203). (As established above in regards to claim 1, if attached lens device 200 is determined to be incompatible with a “normal” TV-AF mode -- i.e., if it only supports conventional control methods, and cannot support (low-)speed driving – lens device 200 having focus lens group 203 is then driven according to a second focusing control mode where the (pseudo) minimum drive target speed (G) is continuously maintained through a series of drive commands. These drive commands may be issued at varying intervals, and each command resets the number of remaining drive pulses, i.e., drive amount, to a target position, so that it fluctuates between an upper value (e.g., 12) and a lower value (ranging from 3 to 6 – corresponding to specified drive amounts ranging from 9 to 6=minimum pulses in Sato’s example). (¶s 45-49, 53-54, 59-60; FIGs. 3-4 and ¶s 14, 42 – Sato shows conventional (“phase difference detection”) drive modes which only support intermittent drive commands, rather than low speed drive commands.)
Regarding claim 6, modified Inomata discloses the focus adjustment device according to claim 1.
Sato further discloses wherein the control unit (camera CPU 111) determines whether the lens unit (lens device 200) is suitable for fine driving based on a minimum drive amount of the focus lens (focus lens group 203). (Camera CPU 111 determines whether attached lens device 200 is compatible with a fine-driving (second focusing control) mode that is based on issuing a series of drive commands to control the number of remaining drive pulses, i.e., drive amount, to a target position, so that it fluctuates between an upper value (e.g., 12) and a lower value (ranging from 3 to 6 – corresponding to specified drive amounts ranging from 9 to 6=minimum pulses in Sato’s example). (¶s 45-49, 53-54, and 59-60; FIGs. 3-4)
Regarding claim 7, modified Inomata discloses the focus adjustment device according to claim 6.
Sato further discloses wherein the minimum drive amount is a minimum drive amount obtained from the lens unit (“drive target position and the output timing of drive commands”, which Examiner notes should provide enough information to fully constrain the minimum drive amount at any given instance, “are changed according to the focal length and subject distance obtained from the unique information of the lens device”; ¶ 49).
Regarding claim 8, modified Inomata discloses the focus adjustment device according to claim 6.
Sato further discloses wherein the minimum drive amount is a minimum drive amount obtained during a reset operation of the lens unit (¶ 60 of Sato shows a reset operation for the drive target position, and hence minimum drive amount, when encountering abnormal drive stoppages).
Regarding claim 9, modified Inomata discloses the focus adjustment device according to claim 1.
Sato further discloses wherein the control unit (camera CPU 111) determines whether the lens unit (lens device 200) is suitable for fine driving based on information obtained from the lens unit (lens device 200) (to determine whether attached lens device is compatible with a fine-driving (“normal” TV-AF) mode, “the camera CPU 111 determines the unique information of the attached lens…”; see ¶ 45).
Regarding claim 10, modified Inomata discloses the focus adjustment device according to claim 9.
Sato further discloses wherein the information is information indicating whether the lens unit (lens device 200) is suitable for fine driving, the information being associated with the lens unit (lens device 200) in advance (“the camera CPU 111 obtains information about the attached lens device. The information acquired at this time includes whether the lens device is TV-AF compatible…”; see ¶ 53. Examiner notes also that since the “information acquired at this time” – i.e., prior to driving – is already indicative of (TV-AF) drive mode compatibility, this suggests that the information has already been set in advance).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inomata in view of Sato and Akio, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Iijima (JP H06006660 A).
Regarding claim 5, modified Inomata discloses the focus adjustment device according to claim 4.
Modified Inomata does not disclose wherein the control unit changes an interval of transmitting the drive command by skipping transmitting the drive command at a control timing, among periodic control timings set in advance, at which an amount of movement of the focus lens until a next control timing is less than the minimum drive amount of the focus lens.
Inomata and Iijima are related as focus adjustors for lens devices.
Iijima discloses wherein the control unit (control circuit 15) changes an interval of transmitting the drive command by skipping transmitting the drive command at a control timing, among periodic control timings set in advance, at which an amount of movement of the focus lens until a next control timing is less than the minimum drive amount of the focus lens (Iijima show that cycles of periodically issued drive commands may be modified to reduce the lens drive speed – e.g., by doubling or tripling the period between drives, or equivalently, skipping drive commands – thereby decreasing the amount of movement until the next drive command, or the next control timing, is reached. See ¶s 31-32 as well as FIG. 4).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Inomata to change intervals between drive commands issued in the focus adjustment device/methods as taught by Iijima in order to reduce the lens drive speed, and therefore decrease the amount of lens movement to be less than the minimum drive amount of the focus lens.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights