DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The Amendment filed 31 December, 2025 (hereinafter “the Amendment’) has been entered and considered. Claims 1, 12-13, 20, and 22 have been amended. Claim 11 has been cancelled. Claims 1-23, all the claims pending in the application, are rejected. All new grounds of rejection set forth in the present action were necessitated by Applicants’ claim amendments; accordingly, this action is made final.
Response to Amendment
2. In view of the amendments to claims 1, 12-13, 20, and 22, the rejections below have been clarified to address the new claim language.
§112(b) Rejections
In view of the amendments to claims 22-23, the rejection under §112(b) is withdrawn.
The 112(b) rejection of claim 12 is maintained.
Prior Art Rejections
On page 12 of the Amendment, the Applicant contends that Nagai does not teach or disclose the features of claim 11 that have been added to claims 1, 13, 20, and 22, specifically, “cutting out a character to be inspected from the image data to be inspected and the reference image, which are to be used, and obtain a character thickening level indicating thickening or thinning of a line width of the cut-out character; and in making the instruction so as to adjust image data, instructing an adjustment amount for the adjustment in accordance with the character thickening level.”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Figures 6A-6F of Nagai discloses cutting out characters for thickness inspection and altering. Furthermore, Nagai discloses in P[0063-0064]: “Examples of the quality operation conditions include a thickness of the character- … The thickness of the character refers to the thickness of a character included in a print image, that is, the thickness of a printed character. The setting of the thickness of the character specifies whether to not change, or to reduce or increase the thickness in a default setting. That is, if the setting of the thickness of the character is changed, the thickness of the printed character changes.”
In view of the foregoing, the combination of Kaneko and Nagai does indeed teach the newly added features of independent claims 1, 13, 20, and 22. Accordingly, the prior art rejections based on the combination of Kaneko and Nagai are modified due the Applicant’s amendments made to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20130250319 A1: Hitomi Kaneko et al., (herein after “Kaneko”).
Regarding claim 21, A method of controlling an inspection apparatus operable to inspect printed matter that has been printed by a printing apparatus (Kaneko, Fig. 3), the method comprising: obtaining image data to be inspected for which printed matter on which printing has been performed on a printing sheet based on reference image data has been read by the read unit (Kaneko, Fig. 3, “printed sheet”, “printed image reader”, “master image reference data/RIP”, “inspection result image”); inspecting whether there is a dot-shaped abnormality in the image data to be inspected based on the reference image data (Kaneko, Fig. 14, where dots are pixels, and further in P[0067]: “is an inspection for finding defects, e.g., spots or printing errors.”); and instructing so as to adjust a printing condition of the printing apparatus (Kaneko, P[0070]: “In the defect determination, if the comparator 146 determines that there are no defects ("YES" at S510), it is determined that printing has been performed normally, and thus, the printed sheet is transported to the stacker 150. If it is determined in the defect determination that there is a defect ("NO" at S510), then the printing apparatus executes a predetermined defect correction such as reprinting, cancellation of printing, or display of an alert on the operating unit 120 (S511).”) based on a difference between an object that has been extracted from the reference image data and an object that corresponds to the object and has been extracted from the image data to be inspected (Kaneko, Fig. 14 discloses the comparison between the image containing the defects and the reference image without the defects, where the defects are extracted, compared, and then removed.).
Regarding claim 23, “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a processor to execute a method”, which is disclosed by Kaneko in §Claim 16: “A non-transitory recording medium storing a plurality of instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform an image inspection method”
The rest of claim 23 recites features nearly identical to those recited in claim 21. Claim 23 is rejected for reasons analogous to those discussed above in conjunction with claim 21.
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.
5. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 13-14, 16, 18-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of US 20200409618 A1: Yuhsuke Nagai, (herein after “Nagai”).
Regarding claim 1, An inspection apparatus operable to inspect printed matter (Kaneko, P[0003]: “present invention relates to an image inspection method, an image inspection apparatus, and a recording medium storing an image inspection control program, and more particularly to a method and an apparatus of inspecting a printed image.”), the apparatus comprising: one or more controllers (Kaneko, P[0046]: “The print controller 117-”) including one or more processors (Kaneko, P[0049]: “hardware and software such as a processor that executes control programs.”) and one or more memories (Kaneko, P[0086]: “invention may be embodied in the form of a computer program stored in any kind of storage medium.”), the one or more controllers being configured to: obtain image data to be inspected by reading printed matter (Kaneko, P[0035]: “The printing apparatus outputs a printed image, which is generated by the printer 110 based on image data according to a print job. The inspection apparatus 140 generates a master image M, and compares the printed image with the master image M.”);
in a case where an inspection process for inspecting a defect of the printed matter is set (Kaneko, P[0067]: “the defect determination is an inspection performed separately from an overlap determination, and is an inspection for finding defects, e.g., spots or printing errors.”), perform an inspection process on the image data to be inspected, which has been obtained by reading the printed matter, based on a reference image (Kaneko, P[0035]: “The printing apparatus outputs a printed image, which is generated by the printer 110 based on image data according to a print job. The inspection apparatus 140 generates a master image M, and compares the printed image with the master image M.”);
in a case where a character quality inspection process for inspecting a quality of a character of the printed matter is set, perform a character quality inspection process on the image data to be inspected, which has been obtained by reading the printed matter, based on the reference image (Kaneko, P[0020]: “FIG. 5 is a flowchart illustrating operation of inspecting the print quality of a print result printed by a printer, performed by the inspection apparatus of FIG. 1”, where the printed matter includes characters. Furthermore, Kaneko discloses the use of a reference/master image as a base for comparison in P[0035]: “The printing apparatus outputs a printed image, which is generated by the printer 110 based on image data according to a print job. The inspection apparatus 140 generates a master image M, and compares the printed image with the master image M.”);
and make an instruction so as to adjust image data to be printed by a printing apparatus that generated the printed matter in accordance with an inspection result of the character quality inspection process on the image data which has been obtained by the reading process is disclosed by Kaneko in P[0067]: “the printing apparatus executes a predetermined defect correction such as reprinting, cancellation of printing, or display of an alert on the operating unit” That is, Kaneko discloses that the images are reprinted based on the quality or defects that have been detected in the printed matter. Kaneko does not explicitly disclose that the image data is altered before reprinting the image.
However, Nagai discloses “adjust image data” in §Abstract: “The image forming apparatus generates an output image according to the print information, and if a non-matching character which a user recognizes with difficulty is included in the output image, generates a corrected image in which all or a part of the non-matching character is corrected.”, and furthermore in Fig. 6A-6F, where it discloses character correction which adjusts the image data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kaneko to adjust image data to remove defects in printed matter, as taught by Nagai, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have provided the benefit of increasing the recognizability of printed characters.
Furthermore, Kaneko does not explicitly disclose wherein, in the character quality inspection process, the one or more controllers are further configured to: cut out a character to be inspected from the image data to be inspected and the reference image, which are to be used, and obtain a character thickening level indicating thickening or thinning of a line width of the cut-out character, wherein, in making the instruction so as to adjust image data, the one or more controllers are configured to instruct an adjustment amount for the adjustment in accordance with the character thickening level.
However, Nagai discloses wherein, in the character quality inspection process, the one or more controllers are further configured to: cut out a character to be inspected from the image data to be inspected and the reference image (Nagai, Fig. 6A-6F discloses cut out characters for thickness inspection and altering), which are to be used, and obtain a character thickening level indicating thickening or thinning of a line width of the cut-out character (Nagai, P[0063]: “Examples of the quality operation conditions include a thickness of the character-”),
wherein, in making the instruction so as to adjust image data, the one or more controllers are configured to instruct an adjustment amount for the adjustment in accordance with the character thickening level (Nagai, P[0064]: “The thickness of the character refers to the thickness of a character included in a print image, that is, the thickness of a printed character. The setting of the thickness of the character specifies whether to not change, or to reduce or increase the thickness in a default setting. That is, if the setting of the thickness of the character is changed, the thickness of the printed character changes.”).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the reference image is an image based on page description language (PDL) data that has been used for creating the printed matter is disclosed by Kaneko in P[0046]: “operation of generating a variable master image … a PDL (Page Description Language) such as PostScript and an image such as an image in TIFF (Tagged Image File Format)”, where the reference image is the master image.
Regarding claim 4, wherein, in the character quality inspection process, the one or more controllers are configured to: automatically determine a character type to be used in inspection of a quality of a character that is included in the image data (Nagai, P[0193]: “Therefore, if the condition where the character corresponding to the processed character code included in the first output image could be a non-matching character is satisfied, the first correction information is referenced, and an image (the second output image) in which the character corresponding to the processed character code is corrected in advance is generated. If the second output image is generated, the operation information is updated to operation information for printing the second output image as a print image.”) to be inspected based on PDL data (Nagai, P[0070]: “The image configuration information is described in a predetermined page description language.”, which contains the character codes.) that has been used for the reference image provided by Kaneko.
Regarding claim 5, wherein in the determination of the character type, determination is performed using image data for which an edge process (Nagai, P[0119]: “a thickness determination program 202n”, where thickness may also be increased or reduced) has been applied on image data of a character included in the printed matter (Nagai, P[0115]: “the non-matching character included in the output image is corrected to reduce the thickness of the character (thickness-reduction correction) to reduce the number of dots forming the non-matching character.”
Regarding claim 7, wherein the image data on which the edge process has been applied is image data on which a digital registration correction process has been performed, where digital registration of images aligns the edges of images for comparative analysis, which is disclosed by Kaneko in P[0021]: “a variable master image and a preprint master image are superimposed on each other such that all edges match”
Regarding claim 8, wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to: set either the inspection process or the character quality inspection process or both the inspection process and the character quality inspection process, is disclosed by Kaneko in P[0046]: “The print controller 117 further sends the RIP image to an image forming controller 118 and the inspection apparatus 140.”, which sets up the inspection processing by providing the image to the inspection apparatus.
Regarding claim 9, wherein, in the setting, the one or more controllers are further configured to: be capable of setting each of a resolution of the image data to be inspected and a resolution of the reference image, which are to be used in the inspection process, and a resolution of the image data to be inspected and a resolution of the reference image, which are to be used in the character quality inspection process is disclosed by Kaneko in P[]: “The resolution converter 162 converts the resolution of the multivalued image and generates, for example, a halftone image. The color converter 163 converts the color of the halftone image whose resolution has been converted. As a result, a variable master image VM converted to the same format as a read image R is generated.”, and furthermore in P[0050]: “The master image generator 143 generates, based on the transmitted image, a preprint master image PM of the same resolution and the same size as the read image R”
Regarding claim 10, wherein settings for the character quality inspection process includes a character type to be inspected is disclosed by Nagai in P[0071]: “The image configuration information includes a character code, an identifier for identifying a font (font identifier), information on the point size of a character, information on the arrangement of characters, information corresponding to a photograph (image information), and information on the arrangement of the photograph.”
Regarding claim 13, A printing system including an information processing apparatus that transmits print data to the printing apparatus and causes a printing apparatus to print the print data, the printing apparatus that generates printed matter by executing printing based on the print data (Kaneko, Fig. 1 and P[0088]: “the printing apparatus of FIG. 1 may be implemented as a printing system, which includes a plurality of apparatuses that communicate with one another to perform the above-described functions. In such case, the operating unit 120 may be provided remotely from the printer 110, the inspection apparatus 140, and the stacker 150. In one example, the operation unit 120 may be implemented by an information processing apparatus such as a personal computer.”), and an inspection apparatus, the inspection apparatus comprising: one or more first controllers including one or more first processors and one or more first memories (Kaneko, P[0088]: “the printing apparatus of FIG. 1 may be implemented as a printing system, which includes a plurality of apparatuses that communicate with one another to perform the above-described functions … the inspection apparatus 140”) , the one or more first controllers being configured to: obtain image data to be inspected by reading printed matter (Kaneko, Fig. 3: “Printer Controller”, the first controller, where the forming transmits data to the printed image reader.);
in a case where an inspection process for inspecting a defect of the printed matter is set (Kaneko, P[0067]: “the defect determination is an inspection performed separately from an overlap determination, and is an inspection for finding defects, e.g., spots or printing errors.”), perform an inspection process on the image data to be inspected, which has been obtained by reading the printed matter, based on a reference image (Kaneko, P[0035]: “The printing apparatus outputs a printed image, which is generated by the printer 110 based on image data according to a print job. The inspection apparatus 140 generates a master image M, and compares the printed image with the master image M.”);
in a case where a character quality inspection process for inspecting a quality of a character of the printed matter is set, perform a character quality inspection process on the image data to be inspected, which has been obtained by reading the printed matter, based on the reference image(Kaneko, P[0020]: “FIG. 5 is a flowchart illustrating operation of inspecting the print quality of a print result printed by a printer, performed by the inspection apparatus of FIG. 1”, where the printed matter includes characters. Furthermore, Kaneko discloses the use of a reference/master image as a base for comparison in P[0035]: “The printing apparatus outputs a printed image, which is generated by the printer 110 based on image data according to a print job. The inspection apparatus 140 generates a master image M, and compares the printed image with the master image M.”);
and instruct so as to adjust image data to be printed by a printing apparatus that generated the printed matter in accordance with an inspection result of the character quality inspection process, is disclosed by Kaneko in P[0067]: “the printing apparatus executes a predetermined defect correction such as reprinting, cancellation of printing, or display of an alert on the operating unit” That is, Kaneko discloses that the images are reprinted based on the quality or defects that have been detected in the printed matter. Kaneko does not explicitly disclose that the image data is altered before reprinting the image.
However, Nagai discloses “adjust image data” in the §Abstract: “The image forming apparatus generates an output image according to the print information, and if a non-matching character which a user recognizes with difficulty is included in the output image, generates a corrected image in which all or a part of the non-matching character is corrected.”, and furthermore in Fig. 6A-6F, where it discloses character correction which adjusts the image data.
and the printing apparatus or the information processing apparatus comprising: one or more second controllers (Kaneko, Fig. 3: “Image Forming Controller”, the second controller, which transmits data to the master image generator and comparator.) including one or more second processors and one or more second memories, the one or more second controllers being configured to: transmit, to the inspection apparatus (Kaneko, Fig. 3: “Element 140”), image data to be the reference images generated from print data (the master reference images), wherein, in the instruction, the one or more first controllers (“Print Controller”) are configured to make an instruction for the adjustment to the printing apparatus or the information processing apparatus, where the comparator is responsible for determining whether to alter the printing process, and therefore is adjusting the printing apparatus, disclosed by Kaneko in P[0067]: “the comparator 146 determines that the offset difference OD is equal to or lower than the threshold Th ("YES" at S507), then a defect determination is made (S508 to S510). On the other hand, if the offset difference OD exceeds the threshold Th ("NO" at S507), then the printing apparatus executes a predetermined defect correction such as reprinting, cancellation of printing, or display of an alert on the operating unit-”, where Fig. 3 discloses that the comparator is in direct communication with the printer, element 110.
The rest of the features of claim 13, specifically, “wherein, in the character quality inspection process, the one or more first controllers are further configured to: cut out a character to be inspected from the image data to be inspected and the reference image, which are to be used, and obtain a character thickening level indicating thickening or thinning of a line width of the cut-out character, wherein, in making the instruction so as to adjust image data, the one or more controllers are configured to instruct an adjustment amount for the adjustment in accordance with the character thickening level”, are recited nearly identically to those recited in claim 1. Claim 13 is rejected for reasons analogous to those discussed above in conjunction with claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, wherein the one or more first controllers (the “printer controller”) are further configured to: set either the inspection process (Kaneko, P[0046]: “The generated RIP image, which is referred to as the CMYK RIP image or simply the RIP image, is transferred, to a printer controller 117. The print controller 117 further sends the RIP image to an image forming controller 118 and the inspection apparatus 140.” Therefore, the inspection process is set by the transmitted RIP image sent from the printer controller to the inspection apparatus.) or the character quality inspection process or both the inspection process and the character quality inspection process.
Regarding claim 16, An inspection apparatus operable to inspect printed matter that has been printed by a printing apparatus (Kaneko, Fig. 1), the inspection apparatus comprising:
one or more controllers including one or more processors and one or more memories, the one or more controllers (Kaneko, Fig. 3), being configured to:
obtain image data to be inspected (Kaneko, Fig. 3, the printer controller and printed image reader with the comparator for inspection purposes.) by reading of printed matter for which printing has been performed based on reference image data (Kaneko, Fig. 3, printed image reader/read image.);
inspect whether there is a dot-shaped abnormality in the image data to be inspected based on the reference image data (Kaneko, Fig. 3, comparator detects pixel/dot/line shaped abnormalities, where a line is a set of pixels/dots along a single direction, which are disclosed by Kaneko in Fig. 14, where it shows defects including dots/pixels and straight lines of pixels in the defects. Fig. 14 of Kaneko also discloses the comparison between the master image and read image.); and
instruct so as to adjust a printing condition of the printing apparatus based on a difference between an object that has been extracted from the reference image data and an object that corresponds to the object that has been extracted from the reference image data and has been extracted from the image data obtained by reading the printed matter is disclosed by Kaneko in P[0067]: “if the offset difference OD exceeds the threshold Th ("NO" at S507), then the printing apparatus executes a predetermined defect correction such as reprinting, cancellation of printing, or display of an alert on the operating unit 120 (S511). In this example, the defect determination is an inspection performed separately from an overlap determination, and is an inspection for finding defects, e.g., spots or printing errors. Namely, the comparator 146 functions as an image inspection unit.”, furthermore, Kaneko discloses extraction of the characteristic points in P[0048]: “The master image generator 143 generates, based on the transmitted image, a preprint master image PM of the same resolution and the same size as the read image R. As in the case of the variable master image VM, the master image generator 143 extracts, by the reference generator 164, the coordinates of characteristic points included in the preprint master image PM, as reference points. After extracting the coordinates of the reference points, the master image generator 143 stores a set of the preprint master image PM and the coordinates of the reference points”
Regarding claim 18, wherein the object is a character (Nagai, Fig. 6A – 6F), and wherein the one or more controllers (Kaneko, Fig. 3, the printer controller sets up the inspection process at the comparator block.) are further configured to: set either a process for the inspection or a process for determining character quality, or both the process for the inspection and the process for determining character quality.
Regarding claim 19, wherein the one or more controllers (printer controller) are further configured to: determine a quality of an object that has been extracted from a region for which the inspected dot-shaped abnormality and a line-shaped abnormality of the image data to be inspected has been removed in the image data to be inspected is disclosed by Kaneko in Fig. 5, S510 and S511, highlighting detection and correction of dot and line shaped defects as shown in further in Fig. 14, where the removal of the defects improves the legibility of the characters which yields the “inspection result image/inspection result data”, which is fed directly into the printer controller, as disclosed by Kaneko in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 20, A method of controlling an inspection apparatus including a reading unit configured to obtain image data is disclosed by Kaneko in the §Abstract: “The present invention relates to an image inspection method, an image inspection apparatus, and a recording medium storing an image inspection control program, and more particularly to a method and an apparatus of inspecting a printed image.”
The rest of claim 20 recites features nearly identical to those recited in claim 1. Claim 20 is rejected for reasons analogous to those discussed above in conjunction with claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a processor to execute a method”, which is disclosed by Kaneko in Claim 16: “A non-transitory recording medium storing a plurality of instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform an image inspection method”
The rest of claim 22 recites features nearly identical to those recited in claim 1. Claim 22 is rejected for reasons analogous to those discussed above in conjunction with claim 1.
6. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kaneko and Nagai in view of US 5299308 A: Hiroaki Suzuki et al., (herein after “Suzuki”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kaneko and Nagai does not explicitly disclose utilization of anti-aliasing processing on images as edge processing, that is, the combination does not explicitly disclose, “wherein the image data on which the edge process has been applied is image data on which an anti-aliasing process has been performed.”
However, Suzuki discloses “wherein the image data on which the edge process has been applied is image data on which an anti-aliasing process has been performed.” in the §Abstract: “Advantageously, the present invention smooths jagged edges by performing an anti-aliasing process.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kaneko and Nagai to perform anti-aliasing, as taught by Suzuki, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have provided the benefit of smoothing out jagged edges of characters making them easier to read.
7. Claims 3, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kaneko and Nagai in view of “Downsampling and Upsampling of Images – Demystifying the Theory”, by Aashish Chaubey, (herein after “Chaubey”).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to: convert a resolution of the image data to be inspected and a resolution of the reference image, which are to be used in the inspection process, wherein in the conversion of the resolution, the resolution of the image data to be inspected and the resolution of the reference image, which are to be used in the inspection process, (Kaneko, P[0047]: “the master image generator 143 includes … a resolution converter 162,”). Furthermore, the combination of Kaneko and Nagai does not explicitly disclose “are converted to a resolution that is lower than a resolution of the image data to be inspected and a resolution of the reference image, which are to be used in the character quality inspection process.”
However, Chaubey discloses that the images of interest are converted to lower resolution/downsampled to enable faster processing in §Downsampling: “It makes the data of a more manageable size … Reduces the dimensionality of the data thus enabling in faster processing of the data (image)”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kaneko and Nagai to downsample the image data, as taught by Chaubey, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have provided the benefit of enabling faster processing of the image data.
Claim 15 recites features nearly identical to those recited in claim 3. Claim 15 is rejected for reasons analogous to those discussed above in conjunction with claim 3.
Claim 17 recites features nearly identical to those recited in claim 3. Claim 17 is rejected for reasons analogous to those discussed above in conjunction with claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
9. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TY M BEATTY whose telephone number is (703) 756-5370. The examiner can normally
be reached Mon-Fri: 8AM-4PM EST..
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,
Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272 - 3838. 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.
/TY MITCHELL BEATTY/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698