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 Arguments
In view of the amendment to the title, the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claims 1, 9 and 14-16, the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 1, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-16 at #11-20 and 22 of the Non-Final Office Action is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 5, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 5 at #21 of the Non-Final Office Action is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 2 at #21 of the Non-Final Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. There is no preceding instantiation of the limitation “the disposed document.” The antecedent basis rejection is maintained. The phrase “… detect a document being disposed within an imaging area” does not provide proper antecedent basis. However, language such as “detect a disposed document within an imaging area” would result in a proper antecedent basis for the limitation at issue. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 2 is maintained.
In view of the amendment to claims 2 and 5, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 2-7 at #23-26 of the Non-Final Office Action is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 8, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 8 at #27 of the Non-Final Office Action is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 10-13 at #28 of the Non-Final Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 10-13 still recited “an image” that has been previously instantiated in claim 1 from which they ultimately depend. Therefore, the ambiguity still exists. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 10-13 is maintained.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 USC 102 rejection of claims 1-16 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. The applicant argues beginning on page 14 of remarks that Arai does not teach an impossible state where the lengths of the document sides are used to make the determination. The presently presented claim language includes two contingency clauses where at any time, only one or the other will be true, i.e., either imaging is possible or it is impossible. Thus, only one or the other is required by the claim as identified in the preceding Office Action as a contingency limitation. Since Arai does disclose a case where imaging is possible, the determination and consideration of the impossible state is not required to be cited against prior art. Any citation thereof is for the convenience of the applicant for consideration in their subsequent response. See MPEP 2111.04(II).
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites “… the other document” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner notes that “another document” has been instantiated in line 9. Subsequent reference to this instantiation should be as “the another document.” For purposes of examination, the references to “the other document” will be interpreted as intending to reference the “another document.”
Dependent claims 2 and 10-13 is similarly rejected as claim 1 above. Dependent claims 3-9 are rejected for failing to remedy the condition of claim 1. Independent claims 14 and 16 are likewise rejected likewise of claim 1 above.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the disposed document." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See remarks above.
Claims 10-13 recite “an image.” It is indefinite as to the intended interpretation. Is the plurality of instantiations of “an image” intended to represent that of the first instantiation or the second instantiation of claim 1 from which they ultimately depend or are each representative of a cascade of different images?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8 and 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arai (EP 2858340 published 20 Nov., 2019 as provided by the applicant).
Claim 1: Arai discloses a control device [Figure 1A-1C for capturing an image with output from a printing apparatus, p0014-0016] comprising:
a processor configured to: acquire motion image information captured by a camera [111 of Figure 1B];
detect a document being disposed within an imaging area of the camera [component for detecting a motion of an object on the reading plate may be provided separately from the camera 104 (visible-light camera) for capturing the read image, p0015];
specify a size of the document disposed in the imaging area from the motion image information [the reading control unit 122 determines the size and the position of the reading target based on the input image to adjust in-focus and zoom positions and obtain the read image by capturing the image of the reading target with a high resolution, and notifies the setting information for the image capturing, p0018];
perform, in a case where the document is disposed in the imaging area of the camera and in a case where a state is in a possible state in which an additional disposition of another document to the imaging area is possible, a first control of capturing an image of the document, on the camera imaging-portion after elapse of a first postponement time [when an object, with a small area with respect to the reading plate 102, is placed to the side to leave a vacant portion on the reading plate 102, it is regarded that another object is likely to be further disposed. In the state 203, three more objects of the same size can be further disposed, and thus the completion level is 25. In the state 204, one more object of the same size can be further disposed, and thus the completion level is 75, p0026, p0026];
determine the state being an impossible state in a case where A>X/2 is satisfied, wherein a length of a short side of the disposed document is denoted by A and a length of a long side of the imaging area is denoted by X [NOTE: this is a contingent limitation. Since a “possible state” has occurred, there is no further evaluation for an “impossible state.” Because this “case” does not happen, then the remainder of the contingency does not happen either. The cited reference includes sufficient structure to perform the function should the “case” occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II)];
and perform, in a case where the document is disposed in the imaging area and in a case where the state is in the impossible state in which the additional disposition of the other document to the imaging area is not possible, a second control of capturing the image of the document, on the camera after elapse of second postponement time shorter than the first postponement time [NOTE: this is a contingent limitation. Since a “possible state” has occurred, there is no further evaluation for an “impossible state” required. Because this “case” does not happen, then the remainder of the contingency does not happen either. The cited reference includes sufficient structure to perform the function should the “case” occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II)].
Claim 2: Arai discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein the impossible state is a state in which a portion of the image area that is not disposed with the document is not sufficient to dispose the other document in a state where the other document has a gap with the document being placed within the image area and has the same size with the document, in a case where the document is disposed in the imaging area, an area, where the other document that has a gap with the document and that has the same size as the disposed document is capable of being disposed, is not present in the imaging area [NOTE: this is a contingent limitation. Since a “possible state” has occurred in claim 1, there is no further evaluation for an “impossible state” required. Because this “case” does not happen, then the remainder of the contingency does not happen either. The cited reference includes sufficient structure to perform the function should the “case” occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II)].
Claim 3: Arai discloses the control device according to claim 2, wherein the impossible state is a state in which in a case where the document that is disposed in the imaging area and the imaging area each have a rectangular shape, and a length of a short side of the document is denoted by A and a length of a long side of the imaging area is denoted by X, A > X/2 is satisfied [NOTE: this is a contingent limitation. Since a “possible state” has occurred in claim 1, there is no further evaluation for an “impossible state” required. Because this “case” does not happen, then the remainder of the contingency does not happen either. The cited reference includes sufficient structure to perform the function should the “case” occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II)].
Claim 4: Arai discloses the control device according to claim 2, wherein the impossible state is a state in which in a case where the document that is disposed in the imaging area and the imaging area each have a rectangular shape, and a length of a short side of the document is denoted by A and a length of a long side of the imaging area is denoted by X, X2>A≥X/3 is satisfied, and a center of gravity of the document that is disposed in the imaging area is positioned within a predetermined center area of the imaging area [NOTE: this is a contingent limitation. Since a “possible state” has occurred in claim 1, there is no further evaluation for an “impossible state” required. Because this “case” does not happen, then the remainder of the contingency does not happen either. The cited reference includes sufficient structure to perform the function should the “case” occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II)].
Claim 5: Arai discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein the possible state is a state in which a portion of the image area that is not disposed with the document is sufficient to dispose the other document in a state where the other document has a gap with the document being placed within the image area and has the same size with the document [In the state 203, a 2L size photograph is disposed in an upper left corner of the reading plate 102. In the state 204, 2L size photographs are respectively disposed in three portions (three of four corners) of the reading plate 102 [gap shown in at least Figure 5]. In the present exemplary embodiment, when an object, with a small area with respect to the reading plate 102, is placed to the side to leave a vacant portion on the reading plate 102, it is regarded that another object is likely to be further disposed. In the state 203, three more objects of the same size can be further disposed, and thus the completion level is 25, p0026].
Claim 8: Arai discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein the first postponement time consists of third postponement time and final postponement time, which is measured after elapse of the third postponement time, and the second postponement time consists of fourth postponement time, which is shorter than the third postponement time, and the final postponement time, which is measured after elapse of the fourth postponement time, or consists only of the final postponement time [wait times adjusted according to object adjustments as shown in at least Figures 6 & 7, e.g., The waiting time before the reading is executed is set to be shorter as the determined completion level increases. In the present exemplary embodiment, for example, the setting unit 124 sets the waiting time as follows. Specifically, the waiting time is set to 10 seconds when the completion level is 0, set to 9 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 1 to 10, set to 8 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 11 to 20, set to 7 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 21 to 30, set to 7 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 31 to 40, set to 6 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 41 to 50, set to 5 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 51 to 60, set to 4 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 61 to 70, set to 3 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 71 to 80, set to 2 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 81 to 90, and set to 1 second when the completion level is 91 or larger, p0053-0059].
Claim 10: Arai discloses the control device according to claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to: remeasure the fourth postponement time in a case where a movement of the document disposed in the imaging area or the additional disposition of the other document to the imaging area is performed before the elapse of the fourth postponement time; and capture an image of the document after elapse of the fourth postponement time and the final postponement time, in the second control [the reading control unit 122 determines that there is a movement on the reading plate 102. Thus, the processing returns to step S300, to be repeated on a newly acquired input image. When the reading control unit 122 determines that the space on the reading plate 102 is in the motionless state (YES in step S301), the reading control unit 122 stores information indicating time, and the processing proceeds to step S302 … wait times adjusted according to object adjustments as shown in at least Figures 6 & 7, e.g., The waiting time before the reading is executed is set to be shorter as the determined completion level increases. In the present exemplary embodiment, for example, the setting unit 124 sets the waiting time as follows. Specifically, the waiting time is set to 10 seconds when the completion level is 0, set to 9 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 1 to 10, set to 8 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 11 to 20, set to 7 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 21 to 30, set to 7 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 31 to 40, set to 6 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 41 to 50, set to 5 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 51 to 60, set to 4 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 61 to 70, set to 3 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 71 to 80, set to 2 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 81 to 90, and set to 1 second when the completion level is 91 or larger, p0029-0033 & p0053-0059].
Claim 11: Arai discloses the control device according to claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to: remeasure the fourth postponement time and the final postponement time in a case where a movement of the document disposed in the imaging area or the additional disposition of the other document to the imaging area is performed after the elapse of the fourth postponement time and before elapse of the final postponement time; and capture an image of the document after elapse of the fourth postponement time and the final postponement time, in the second control [the reading control unit 122 determines that there is a movement on the reading plate 102. Thus, the processing returns to step S300, to be repeated on a newly acquired input image. When the reading control unit 122 determines that the space on the reading plate 102 is in the motionless state (YES in step S301), the reading control unit 122 stores information indicating time, and the processing proceeds to step S302 … wait times adjusted according to object adjustments as shown in at least Figures 6 & 7, e.g., The waiting time before the reading is executed is set to be shorter as the determined completion level increases. In the present exemplary embodiment, for example, the setting unit 124 sets the waiting time as follows. Specifically, the waiting time is set to 10 seconds when the completion level is 0, set to 9 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 1 to 10, set to 8 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 11 to 20, set to 7 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 21 to 30, set to 7 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 31 to 40, set to 6 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 41 to 50, set to 5 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 51 to 60, set to 4 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 61 to 70, set to 3 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 71 to 80, set to 2 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 81 to 90, and set to 1 second when the completion level is 91 or larger, p0029-0033 & p0053-0059].
Claim 12: Arai discloses the control device according to claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to: remeasure the third postponement time in a case where a movement of the document disposed in the imaging area or the additional disposition of the other document to the imaging area is performed before the elapse of the third postponement time; and capture an image of the document after elapse of the third postponement time and the final postponement time, in the first control [the reading control unit 122 determines that there is a movement on the reading plate 102. Thus, the processing returns to step S300, to be repeated on a newly acquired input image. When the reading control unit 122 determines that the space on the reading plate 102 is in the motionless state (YES in step S301), the reading control unit 122 stores information indicating time, and the processing proceeds to step S302 … wait times adjusted according to object adjustments as shown in at least Figures 6 & 7, e.g., The waiting time before the reading is executed is set to be shorter as the determined completion level increases. In the present exemplary embodiment, for example, the setting unit 124 sets the waiting time as follows. Specifically, the waiting time is set to 10 seconds when the completion level is 0, set to 9 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 1 to 10, set to 8 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 11 to 20, set to 7 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 21 to 30, set to 7 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 31 to 40, set to 6 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 41 to 50, set to 5 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 51 to 60, set to 4 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 61 to 70, set to 3 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 71 to 80, set to 2 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 81 to 90, and set to 1 second when the completion level is 91 or larger, p0029-0033 & p0053-0059].
Claim 13: Arai discloses the control device according to claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to: measure the third postponement time and the final postponement time in a case where a movement of the document disposed in the imaging area or the additional disposition of the other document to the imaging area is performed after the elapse of the third postponement time and before elapse of the final postponement time; and capture an image of the document after elapse of the third postponement time and the final postponement time, in the first control [the reading control unit 122 determines that there is a movement on the reading plate 102. Thus, the processing returns to step S300, to be repeated on a newly acquired input image. When the reading control unit 122 determines that the space on the reading plate 102 is in the motionless state (YES in step S301), the reading control unit 122 stores information indicating time, and the processing proceeds to step S302 … wait times adjusted according to object adjustments as shown in at least Figures 6 & 7, e.g., The waiting time before the reading is executed is set to be shorter as the determined completion level increases. In the present exemplary embodiment, for example, the setting unit 124 sets the waiting time as follows. Specifically, the waiting time is set to 10 seconds when the completion level is 0, set to 9 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 1 to 10, set to 8 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 11 to 20, set to 7 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 21 to 30, set to 7 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 31 to 40, set to 6 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 41 to 50, set to 5 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 51 to 60, set to 4 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 61 to 70, set to 3 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 71 to 80, set to 2 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 81 to 90, and set to 1 second when the completion level is 91 or larger, p0029-0033 & p0053-0059].
Claims 14 and 16: the program and apparatus herein have been executed or performed by the device of claim 1 and are therefore, likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (EP 2858340 published 20 Nov., 2019 as provided by the applicant).
Claim 6: Arai discloses the control device according to claim 5.
Arai does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the possible state is a state in which in a case where the document that is disposed in the imaging area and the imaging area each have a rectangular shape, and a length of a short side of the document is denoted by A and a length of a long side of the imaging area is denoted by X, X/3 > A is satisfied.
Arai does disclose recognizing the size of the document [the reading control unit 122 determines the size and the position of the reading target based on the input image to adjust in-focus and zoom positions and obtain the read image by capturing the image of the reading target with a high resolution, and notifies the setting information for the image capturing] and further determines the area (inherently indicative of determining a width and length of the document) of the document and remaining area of the reading plate [for determining a timing of capturing the read image, the determination unit 123 determines the completion level as a value in a range of 0 to 100, based on a ratio of the area of a vacant portion on the reading plate 102 and the position of the object … e.g., the vacancy rate on the object is low, the object is in the center of the reading plate 102, and another object of the same size cannot be further disposed and when an object, with a small area with respect to the reading plate 102, is placed to the side to leave a vacant portion on the reading plate 102, it is regarded that another object is likely to be further disposed. In the state 203, three more objects of the same size can be further disposed, and thus the completion level is 25. In the state 204, one more object of the same size can be further disposed, and thus the completion level is 75].
At the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to evaluate the ability to image an additional document(s) in the imaging area.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success since the solution as disclosed by Arai provides the solution to accurately determine the ability of imaging an additional document(s) in the imaging area by utilizing a ratio of the document’s area by determining an area of the document (which inherently is indicative of recognition of a length and width dimension) in comparison with the dimension of the total imaging area possible, e.g., A3 size.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claim 7: Arai discloses the control device according to claim 5.
Arai does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the possible state is a state in which in a case where the document that is disposed in the imaging area and the imaging area each have a rectangular shape, and a length of a short side of the document is denoted by A and a length of a long side of the imaging area is denoted by X, X2 > A ≥ X/3 is satisfied, and a center of gravity of the document that is disposed in the imaging area is positioned outside a predetermined center area of the imaging area.
Arai does disclose recognizing the size of the document [the reading control unit 122 determines the size and the position of the reading target based on the input image to adjust in-focus and zoom positions and obtain the read image by capturing the image of the reading target with a high resolution, and notifies the setting information for the image capturing] and further determines the area (inherently indicative of determining a width and length of the document) of the document and remaining area of the reading plate [for determining a timing of capturing the read image, the determination unit 123 determines the completion level as a value in a range of 0 to 100, based on a ratio of the area of a vacant portion on the reading plate 102 and the position of the object … e.g., the vacancy rate on the object is low, the object is in the center of the reading plate 102, and another object of the same size cannot be further disposed and when an object, with a small area with respect to the reading plate 102, is placed to the side to leave a vacant portion on the reading plate 102, it is regarded that another object is likely to be further disposed. In the state 203, three more objects of the same size can be further disposed, and thus the completion level is 25. In the state 204, one more object of the same size can be further disposed, and thus the completion level is 75].
At the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to evaluate the ability to image an additional document(s) in the imaging area.
There were a finite number of identified and predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem which determined whether another document can be disposed in an imaging area.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success since the solution as disclosed by Arai provides the solution to accurately determine the ability of imaging an additional document(s) in the imaging area by utilizing a ratio of the document’s area by determining an area of the document (which inherently is indicative of recognition of a length and width dimension) in consideration of the length and width dimension of the total imaging area possible, e.g., A3 size.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention at the time the invention was made.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (EP 2858340 published 20 Nov., 2019 as provided by the applicant) in view of Maeda (US Pub No. 20070220209).
Claim 9: Arai discloses the control device according to claim 8.
Arai does not appear to disclose wherein the processor is configured to: perform a control of providing a notification of a measurement status of the final postponement time, on a display.
Maeda discloses in a related, well-known system from the same field of endeavor [Abstract] the processor is configured to: perform a control of providing a notification of a measurement status of the final [each] postponement time, on a display [a current progress status of a processing that includes a data processing and a data output processing, the data processing including a data layout processing [i.e., final postponement] … progress display section 18 displays the progress statuses of all the processings performed in the progress display system 1. The progress display section 18 is provided with a progress information acquisition unit 19, a progress rate calculation unit 20, and a progress rate display unit 21 … FIGS. 6A through 6E are diagrams showing exemplary progress display screens including data acquisition progress, rendering progress, print completion progress, error condition and progress on remaining jobs, p0008, p0038, p0044 & p0051].
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have included in Arai the support to perform a control of providing a notification of a measurement status of the final postponement time, on a display as disclosed by Maeda because it allows the user to determine how much processing is remaining as discussed by Maeda in at least paragraph 0008.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Atkins, US Patent No. 7656543, discloses utilizing document aspect ratio, defined as a ratio of image height to image width, to determine layout in a page area (e.g., imaging area) to maximize coverage without image overlap.
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 BARBARA D. REINIER whose telephone number is (571)270-5082. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu 10am - 6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Benny Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/BARBARA D REINIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights