DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Applicant’s amendment, filed 12 August 2026, overcomes the prior rejection(s). However, the amendment introduces a new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ornellas (US 20040238725 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ornellas discloses a printing apparatus (Fig. 1, printer 100; ¶ 19) including a printhead (Fig. 1, print head 130) and a monitoring device (Fig. 1, sensor 120),
the monitoring device (Fig. 1, sensor 120, as further detailed in Fig. 2B; ¶ 29) including an emitter (Fig. 2B, illuminator 210), a receiver (Fig. 2B, array 225), and a processor (¶ 26, digital signal processor within photosensor 220; ¶ 35, processor of sensor 120);
the emitter (Fig. 2B, illuminator 210) being operable to emit a first output (Fig. 5, reference illumination at step 500; ¶ 33) and a second output (Fig. 5, sample illumination at step 510 using the same acquisition process; ¶ 34) towards a target surface (Fig. 4B, target area 400 of print medium 110; ¶ 32), and
the receiver (Fig. 2B, array 225) being operable to receive first data (¶ 33, reference detector values) corresponding to a reflected portion of the first output (¶¶ 25, 28, 32-33, surface scattered reference light from target area 400) and second data (¶ 34, sample detector values) corresponding to a reflected portion of the second output (¶¶ 25, 28, 32, 34, surface scattered sample light from target area 400), each reflected portion having been reflected by the target surface (Fig. 4B, target area 400 of print medium 110; ¶¶ 28, 32),
wherein the target surface is a substrate to be printed (Fig. 4B, target area 400 of print medium 110; ¶¶ 21, 32), and
wherein each output emitted by the emitter is electromagnetic radiation (¶ 24, visible, infrared, or ultraviolet light), and
wherein the processor is operable to compare the data corresponding to the reflected portion of the first output and the data corresponding to the reflected portion of the second output to monitor movement (Fig. 5, correlation step 520; ¶ 35, comparison of reference frame values and sample frame values; ¶ 36, determine relative motion) of the target surface relative to the monitoring device (¶¶ 32, 43, print medium 110 relative to sensor 120) based on a parameter of the target surface relative to the monitoring device (¶¶ 26, 38, ΔX and ΔY relative displacement).
Regarding claim 2, Ornellas discloses the printing apparatus according to claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the parameter is at least one of position, displacement, speed and acceleration of the target surface (¶¶ 26, 38-39, ΔX and ΔY relative displacement derived from the correlation data).
Regarding claim 3, Ornellas discloses the printing apparatus according to claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the monitoring device is an optical sensor (¶ 20, optical encoder trigger sensor 120).
Regarding claim 4, Ornellas discloses the printing apparatus according to claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the emitter is a laser (¶¶ 22-23, one or more lasers).
Regarding claim 7, Ornellas discloses the printing apparatus according to claim 1, and further discloses: wherein at least a part of the monitoring device is positioned on or adjacent the printhead (Fig. 1, sensor 120 on print head 130; ¶ 43, sensor 120 is mounted to and disposed on print head 130).
Regarding claim 13, Ornellas discloses a method (Fig. 5, steps 500-585; ¶¶ 33-41) of monitoring a parameter (¶¶ 26, 38-39, ΔX and ΔY relative displacement) in a printing apparatus (Fig. 1, printer 100), the method including:
providing a monitoring device (Figs. 1, 2B, sensor 120) including an emitter (Fig. 2A, illuminator 210), a receiver (Fig. 2B, array 225), and a processor (¶ 26, digital signal processor within photosensor 220; ¶ 35, processor of sensor 120);
emitting a first output from the emitter (Fig. 5, reference illumination at step 500; ¶ 33, activating illuminator 210) towards a target surface (Fig. 4B, target area 400 of print medium 110; ¶ 32) at a first time (Fig. 5, step 500; ¶¶ 33-34, reference acquisition precedes the subsequent sample acquisition);
receiving a reflected portion of the first output, which is reflected by the target surface, at the receiver (Fig. 5, step 500; ¶¶ 25, 28, 32-33, surface scattered reference light detected by array 225);
storing first data representative of the reflected portion of the first output in the monitoring device (¶¶ 33, 35, 41, storage of reference detector values into memory);
emitting a second output from the emitter (Fig. 5, sample illumination at step 510; ¶¶ 33-34) towards the target surface (Fig. 4B, target area 400 of print medium 110; ¶ 32) at a second time after the first time (Fig. 5, step 510 after step 500; ¶ 34, sample acquisition occurs at a time interval subsequent to reference acquisition), with a first interval between the times (¶ 34, identified subsequent time interval); and
receiving a reflected portion of the second output, which is reflected by the target surface, at the receiver (Fig. 5, step 510; ¶¶ 25, 28, 32-34, surface scattered sample light detected by array 225);
wherein the target surface is a substrate to be printed (Fig. 4B, target area 400 of print medium 110; ¶¶ 21, 32);
wherein the first output and the second output include electromagnetic radiation (¶¶ 23-24, visible, infrared, or ultraviolet); and
comparing the second data with the first data using the processor of the monitoring device (Fig. 5, correlation step 520; ¶¶ 26, 35) to monitor movement of the target surface relative to the monitoring device (Fig. 5, steps 520-560; ¶¶ 35-39, 43, sensor 120 monitors relative movement of print medium 110) based on a parameter of the target surface relative to the monitoring device (¶¶ 26, 38-39, ΔX and ΔY relative displacement derived from the correlation data) during the first interval (¶ 34, identifies interval between acquisitions; ¶ 36, determines relative motion occurring during collection of the two data sets; ¶ 38, processes the time interval information to compute displacement).
Regarding claim 14, Ornellas discloses the method according to claim 13, and further discloses: wherein the parameter is at least one of position and displacement of the target surface relative to the monitoring device (¶¶ 26, 32, 38, 43, displacement of print medium 110 relative to sensor 120).
Regarding claim 16, Ornellas discloses the method according to claim 13, and further discloses: wherein comparison of the outputs enables monitoring displacement (Fig. 5, steps 520, 550, 560; ¶¶ 35-39, the comparison produces correlation values that are processed into displacement) of the target surface relative to the monitoring device in two dimensions (¶ 26, digital signal processor outputs ΔX and ΔY relative displacement values; ¶¶ 38-39, correlation data produces displacement output as ΔX and ΔY).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ornellas in view of Guo (US 20070109267 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Ornellas discloses the printing apparatus according to claim 4, however does not disclose: wherein the emitter is a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser. Guo teaches the limitation in Fig. 1, VCSEL 22; ¶ 24. 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 emitter of Ornellas with the vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser taught by Guo, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to employ a known coherent laser source for surface illumination, thereby yielding a system with a VCSEL that predictably performs the same established function of illuminating a surface to generate reflected speckle for motion detection, because the modification constitutes a simple substitution of one known laser implementation for another producing a predictable result (KSR rationale B).
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ornellas in view of Torchalski (US 6201255 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Ornellas discloses the printing apparatus according to claim 1, however does not disclose: wherein at least a part of the monitoring device is housed substantially within a body of the printer, the body of the printer also housing the printhead. Torchalski teaches the limitation, specifically: at least a part of the monitoring device is housed substantially within a body of the printer (Col. 34:11-14, emitter and detector are “substantially completely enclosed within said printer housing”) and the body of the printer also housing the printhead (Col. 8:59-65, the same printer housing contains internal printhead assembly 96 and printhead means 100). 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 printing apparatus of Ornellas with the teachings of Torchalski with a reasonable expectation of success in order to avoid interference of the sensor components from printer loading and operation (Torchalski, Col. 34:11-14).
Regarding claim 12, Ornellas discloses the printing apparatus according to claim 1. Although Ornellas provides that an ink jet implementation is presented “for ease of explanation only” and that its optical encoder trigger sensor may be incorporated into “any type of image printing device” (¶ 18), Ornellas does not expressly disclose: the printing apparatus being a thermal transfer printer. However, Torchalski teaches a printing apparatus being a thermal transfer printer (Col. 13:60-67, printer 20 delivers “thermal transfer ribbon 115” to printhead means 100, and the ribbon “transfers ink onto the media 113” when the printhead is thermally activated). 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 printing apparatus of Ornellas with the thermal transfer teachings of Torchalski with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification would have combined familiar printer elements according to known methods, with each retaining its established function, to yield predictable results (KSR Rationale A). The sensor of Ornellas would continue monitoring print medium motion, while the thermal printhead and ribbon delivery mechanism of Torchalski would transfer ink from thermally activated ribbon 115 onto media 113, providing the known capability of ribbon implemented thermal transfer printing (Torchalski, Figs. 4 and 8; Col. 13:60-67).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ornellas in view of Valero (US 20030081038 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Ornellas discloses the printing apparatus according to claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the emitter of the monitoring device is arranged (Fig. 4B, illuminator 210 situated relative to print medium 110 at grazing angle β; ¶ 32) such that an output of the emitter is emitted towards a position on the target surface (Fig. 4B, light emitted by illuminator 210 towards target area 400 of print medium 110; ¶ 32) […]. Ornellas does not disclose: [a position on the target surface] “which is substantially aligned with one or more printing elements of the printhead.” However, Valero teaches the limitation. Specifically, Valero teaches a monitoring device (Fig. 2, sensor module 200, as further detailed in Fig. 3; ¶¶ 35, 39) having an emitter (Fig. 3, LED 232; ¶ 39) that emits an output (Fig. 3, illumination projected from LED 232; ¶ 40) towards a position (¶ 9, illuminated area encompassing the first intended location) on a target surface (Fig. 3, print medium 30; ¶ 40), which position is substantially aligned with one or more printing elements (Fig. 2, sensor module 200 and nozzles 107; ¶ 35, nozzles 107 “are in line with the sensor module 200”) of the printhead (Fig. 2, pen 102; ¶¶ 31, 35, nozzles 107 belong to representative pen 102). 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 printing apparatus of Ornellas with the teachings of Valero with a reasonable expectation of success in order to align the illuminated target position of the emitter with one or more printhead nozzles so that optical sensing corresponds to the locations at which the printing elements place ink, thereby yielding a system with more precise printhead registration and reduced placement offsets caused by paper slippage, paper skew, and pen misalignment (Valero, ¶¶ 36-38, 42, 44).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ornellas in view of Sims (US 6380965 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Ornellas discloses the printing apparatus according to claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the monitoring device is positioned (Fig. 4B, sensor 120 positioned in optical light of sight with target area 400; ¶ 32) such that the first output and the second output are incident on the substrate (Fig. 4B, light from illuminator 210 illuminates target area 400 of print medium 110; ¶¶ 21, 32-34, 43), but […]. Ornellas does not disclose: [output incident] “not on an inked ribbon positioned adjacent the substrate.” However, Sims teaches the positioning of optical output on an exposed substrate surface outside the optical path of an adjacent ribbon. In particular, Sims teaches a sensor arrangement 72 (Fig. 3, further detailed by source 90 and detector 92 in Figs. 5A-5B; Col. 13:56-65) positioned along the path of tape 38 downstream of printhead 26 and platen 28 (Fig. 3; Col. 18:50-61), with source 90 directing sensing light onto the rear surface of tape 38 (Figs. 4-5B; Col. 11:33-41; Col. 13:60-65; Col. 14:1-7), rather than onto adjacent ink ribbon 42, which overlaps and contacts the image receiving surface of tape 38 at the thermal transfer print zone (Figs. 2-3; Col. 10:8-17). 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 printing apparatus of Ornellas with the teachings of Sims, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to directly sense substrate movement rather than the adjacent ribbon, thereby improving print media tracking and reducing the effect of speed variations on print quality (Sims, Col. 11:42-59; Col. 13:13-31; Col. 18:50-61).
Regarding claim 19, Ornellas discloses a method according to claim 13, wherein the monitoring device is positioned (Fig. 4B, sensor 120 relative to target area 400; ¶ 32) such that the first output and the second output are incident on the substrate (Fig. 4B, target area 400 of print medium 110; ¶¶ 21, 32-34, 43), but […]. Ornellas does not disclose: [output incident] “not on an inked ribbon positioned adjacent the substrate.” However, Sims teaches the positioning of optical output on an exposed substrate surface outside the optical path of an adjacent ribbon. In particular, Sims teaches a sensor arrangement 72 (Fig. 3, further detailed by source 90 and detector 92 in Figs. 5A-5B; Col. 13:56-65) positioned along the path of tape 38 downstream of printhead 26 and platen 28 (Fig. 3; Col. 18:50-61), with source 90 directing sensing light onto the rear surface of tape 38 (Figs. 4-5B; Col. 11:33-41; Col. 13:60-65; Col. 14:1-7), rather than onto adjacent ink ribbon 42, which overlaps and contacts the image receiving surface of tape 38 at the thermal transfer print zone (Figs. 2-3; Col. 10:8-17). 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 method of Ornellas with the teachings of Sims, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to directly sense substrate movement rather than the adjacent ribbon, thereby improving print media tracking and reducing the effect of speed variations on print quality (Sims, Col. 11:42-59; Col. 13:13-31; Col. 18:50-61).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ornellas in view of Rabin (US 20230118766 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Ornellas discloses the printing apparatus according to claim 1, however does not disclose: a plurality of monitoring devices, so as to enable monitoring of a plurality of parameters. Rabin teaches a plurality of monitoring devices (Fig. 1, sensors 104 and 108 in modules 102 and 106; ¶¶ 29-32), so as to enable monitoring of a plurality of parameters (Fig. 5; ¶¶ 60 and 63, monitors multiple parameters by determining total displacement and “the rate of displacement in addition to … the total displacement”). 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 printing apparatus of Ornellas with the teachings of Rabin with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce accumulated tracking error from a single sensor through employing a plurality of optical monitoring devices and measuring both total displacement and displacement rate, as taught by Rabin, thereby yielding a system with higher precision media tracking and more accurate ink placement and substrate handling (Rabin, ¶¶ 18-19, 23, 60, 63, 65).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ornellas in view of McNestry (US 9038685 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Ornellas discloses the printing apparatus according to claim 1, and further discloses: a controller (Fig. 1, controller 190; ¶¶ 19-21), wherein the controller is operable to receive data indicative of one or more monitored parameters (¶¶ 26, 32, 38-39, ΔX and ΔY displacement) and […]. Ornellas does not disclose: “to use the data indicative of the one or more monitored parameters to determine at least one of a speed of the target surface relative to the monitoring device, an acceleration of the target surface, and a diameter of a spool of inked ribbon.” However, McNestry teaches the limitation. In particular, McNestry teaches a controller (Col. 32:41, 47) configured to receive a linear displacement sensor signal and monitor movement based on that signal (Col. 32:47-52), and to further determine from the signal the rate of displacement (Col. 32:51-57; Col. 10:12-14). 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 printing apparatus of Ornellas with the teachings of McNestry with a reasonable expectation of success in order to configure controller 190 of Ornellas to determine print medium speed from displacement data, thereby providing for more accurate positioning of the print medium relative to the printhead, yielding higher fidelity printing reproduction (McNestry, Col. 1:35-43; Col. 32:56-63).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ornellas in view of Besnard (“Analysis of Image Series Through Global Digital Image Correlation,” published 2012)1.
Regarding claim 15, Ornellas discloses the method according to claim 13, and further discloses: emitting a series (¶¶ 33-34, 42, continual reference and sample frame acquisitions followed by another sample acquisition) of coherent electromagnetic radiation outputs (Fig. 2A, illuminator 210; ¶ 23, coherent laser light source), there being a respective time interval (¶ 34, sample acquisition occurs at a subsequent time interval) between each output and a subsequent output in the series (Fig. 5, steps 500 and 510; ¶¶ 33-34, 42, subsequent sample acquisitions); receiving a corresponding reflected portion of each output of the series (¶¶ 33-34, 42, repeated acquisitions use the same collection process) at the receiver (Fig. 4B, illuminated target area 400; ¶¶ 25, 28, 32, surface scattered light is collected by array 225); and […]. Ornellas does not disclose: “determining a monitoring period between a first and last output of at least three outputs of the series; and comparing the respective reflected portions of the at least three outputs of the series, to monitor displacement of the target surface relative to the monitoring device during the monitoring period.”
Besnard teaches determining a monitoring period between a first output and a last output (p. 7, § 2.1, Eq. 5, interval [t0, t1] corresponding to illuminated image acquired between t0 and t1) of at least three outputs of the series (p. 20-21, § 3.4, n=22 illuminated pictures); and comparing the respective reflected portions (§ 3.4, p. 21, pictures of the painted surface obtained under annular lighting selected to minimize reflectivity variations) of the at least three outputs of the series (§ 3.4, p. 21, 22-picture series; § 5, p. 28, correlation of the whole sequence) to monitor displacement of the target surface relative to the monitoring device (p. 5, § 2.1, Eq. 1, displacement field u(x,t); § 3.4, p. 20, lateral surface of specimen relative to monitoring microscope) during the monitoring period (p. 7, § 2.1, Eq. 5, correlation over ROI × [t0, t1]). 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 method of Ornellas with the teachings of Besnard with a reasonable expectation of success in order to jointly correlate sequentially reflected light frames over a common monitoring period, thereby providing a method with improved measurement resolution and reduced measurement uncertainty (Besnard, p. 1, Abstract; p. 19, § 3.3).
Claims 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ornellas in view of Hayashi (US 20090322819 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Ornellas discloses the method according to claim 13, and further discloses: receiving data indicative of the monitored parameter of the target surface (¶¶ 26, 38-39, ΔX and ΔY displacement) at a controller (¶¶ 20, 39, controller 190 receiving the step 560 output from sensor 120) of a printing apparatus (Fig. 1, printer 100; ¶ 19), and […]. Ornellas does not disclose: “using the monitored parameter to determine a further parameter of the target surface.” Hayashi teaches the limitation, specifically: using the monitored parameter (Fig. 7, distance moved by print medium 8; ¶ 46) to determine a further parameter (Fig. 7, conveying speed; ¶ 46, calculation based on movement between T1 and T2 and the T1 to T2 time difference) of the target surface (Fig. 7, print medium 8; ¶¶ 44, 46). 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 method of Ornellas with the teachings of Hayashi with a reasonable expectation of success in order to calculate print medium speed from received displacement data over the acquisition interval, thereby providing a method with high accuracy medium movement detection and precise conveyance control during printing (Hayashi, ¶¶ 12, 46, 62).
Regarding claim 18, Ornellas in view of Hayashi teaches the method according to claim 17, and further teaches: wherein the further parameter is at least one of speed and acceleration (Hayashi, Fig. 7, conveying speed of print medium 8; ¶ 46).
Regarding claim 20, Ornellas in view of Hayashi teaches the method according to claim 17, and further teaches: using at least one of the monitored parameter and the further parameter (Hayashi, Fig. 7 & ¶ 46, conveying speed, as employed by Ornellas, Fig. 5, step 560; ¶ 39) to control an aspect of a printing operation of the printing apparatus of a printing operation of the printing apparatus (Ornellas, Fig. 1, print driver 125 controlling the operation of print head 130; ¶¶ 19-20, firing timing and rate).
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Hess (US 20020158955 A1) which discloses a printer that illuminates the printable medium, receives reflected light, and compares successive image data to determine relative movement.
Otsuka (US 20050053408 A1) which discloses a printing apparatus that emits light towards a print medium, receives reflected image data at successive times, and compares the images to determine movement of the medium.
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 extension fee 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 ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
1 Gilles Besnard, Hugo Leclerc, François Hild, Stéphane Roux & Nicolas Swiergiel, “Analysis of Image Series Through Global Digital Image Correlation,” The Journal of Strain Analysis for Engineering Design, 2012, 47 (4), pp. 214-288.
Prosecution Insights