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 .
Claim Interpretation
During patent examination, pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” MPEP 2111; See also, MPEP 2173.02. Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). See also, In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow”). The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed. An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.
The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to consider fully the entirety of the reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6, 8-9, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0306975 A1 to Islam et al. (hereinafter Islam).
With regard to claim 1, Islam discloses:
1. A visual inspection system, (see, detailed description, including, Background, an image captured by a camera to control a robot for manipulating objects on a conveyor, and is therefore responsive to the outer shape and position of the objects, para. 0002) wherein the visual inspection system comprises:
a visual calibration apparatus (see, Fig. 5A, and 5B, and detailed description, including, a robot operation system, para. 0051), comprising a calibration member and a calibration member moving apparatus, a robot operation system, para. 0051) wherein the calibration member moving apparatus comprises a movable mounting plate (see, Fig. 3,), the mounting plate (see, detailed description, including, a robot hand 355, para. 0049) is able to be located at a calibration position within a movement range of the mounting plate, the calibration position is located within an inspection range of a visual inspection apparatus, (see, detailed description, including, may capture images of the calibration pattern 320, para. 0049) and the calibration member is disposed on the mounting plate (see, detailed description, including, the robot hand 355 may have a calibration pattern 320, para. 0049);
the visual inspection apparatus, configured to obtain an image of the calibration member (see, detailed description, including, robot control system 110 may capture images of the calibration pattern 320 via the camera 370 and perform camera calibration based on the captured images, para. 0049) and send the image of the calibration member to an upper computer; and
the upper computer, configured to determine, based on the image of the calibration member, a systematic calibration result of the visual inspection apparatus (see, as above, and detailed description, including, the camera calibration information may describe an intrinsic parameter of the camera 270, para. 0048-0049).
With regard to claim 6, Islam discloses:
6. The visual inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the calibration member comprises:
a plate body having a calibration surface (see, Fig. 2, and detailed description, including, the robot 250 may have a base 252 and a robot arm that is movable relative to the base 252, para. 0046); and
a plurality of size calibration parts spaced apart on the calibration surface in a linear direction, wherein the plurality of size calibration parts each have a length dimension in a first direction and a width dimension in a second direction, with a gradient change in the length dimensions of the plurality of size calibration parts and/or a gradient change in the width dimensions of the plurality of size calibration parts, wherein the first direction and the second direction are directions perpendicular to each other in a horizontal plane (see, detailed description, including, may capture images of the calibration pattern 320, para. 0049) and the calibration member is disposed on the mounting plate (see, detailed description, including, the robot hand 355 may have a calibration pattern 320, para. 0049).
With regard to claim 8, Islam discloses:
8. The visual inspection system according to claim 6, wherein sizes of the plurality of size calibration parts in a third direction exhibit a gradient change, the third direction being perpendicular to both the first direction and the second direction, (see, detailed description, including, controls the robot arm to move the verification symbol 530, during the idle period, para. 0071); teaches that the robot control system 110 may stop the robot operation and perform a second camera calibration, para. 0089), implying that the robot operation is synchronized with the conveyor activity.
With regard to claim 9, Islam discloses:
9. The visual inspection system according to claim 6, further comprising color card calibration parts disposed on the calibration surface of the plate body and having a gradient change in gray value (see, detailed description, including, that appropriate measures, such as issuing an alarm, should be taken if deviations from the calibration parameters exceed a threshold, para. 0048).
With regard to claim 10, claim 10 (a system claim) recites substantially similar limitations to at least a portion of claim 6, 7, 9 (all system claims) (roughness is interpreted to include protrusions, and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
With regard to claim 11, claim 11 (a method claim) recites substantially similar limitations to at least a portion of claim 1 (a system claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-4, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/043476 A1 to Stark et al. (hereinafter Stark).
With regard to claim 2, Islam discloses:
2. The visual inspection system according to claim 1, [wherein the calibration member comprises a plurality of size calibration parts with a gradient change in size and a plurality of color card calibration parts with a gradient change in gray value];
the visual inspection apparatus is further configured to obtain a first image of the size calibration part and a second image of the color card calibration part and send the first image and the second image to the upper computer; and
the upper computer is further configured to determine, based on the first image and/or the second image, the systematic calibration result of the visual inspection apparatus.
Islam fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the calibration member comprises a plurality of size calibration parts with a gradient change in size and a plurality of color card calibration parts with a gradient change in gray value;
Stark discloses:
the calibration member comprises a plurality of size calibration parts with a gradient change in size and a plurality of color card calibration parts with a gradient change in gray value (see, Fig. 3, and detailed description, including, contrast sheet 300 is pure white in color so that it is possible to get good image delineation against the background. Calibration target 302 is both a size and color scale image that is used by the present arrangement to judge the size of image 202 (by reference) as well as to adjust for background lighting, para. 0031);
the visual inspection apparatus is further configured to obtain a first image of the size calibration part and a second image of the color card calibration part and send the first image and the second image to the upper computer (see, detailed instructions, including, film 200 is hung on contrast sheet 300 next to calibration target 302, such that both image 202 and calibration target 302 are captured in the electronic image 400. As an additional feature, once image 202 is captured, the present arrangement may allow for dimensional markings 602, para. 0033); and
the upper computer is further configured to determine, based on the first image and/or the second image, the systematic calibration result of the visual inspection apparatus (see, Fig. 4, and detailed description, including, converts the monochrome color density image 202 into a multi-color map 402 where different colors are assigned to different color densities from image 202. For example, in the present example if image 202 is a monochrome color density image using magenta, then pseudo-color map 402 generated by processor 12 will have the same dimensions but instead of using one color will re-represent darker color dense regions of image 202 as purple/violet colors on map 402 with lighter color dense regions of image 202 re-represented on map 402 as red color, with the in between color densities of image 202 represented using the various colors of the visible spectrum (red-orange-yellow-green-blue-violet) for the mid-range color densities of image 202, para. 0038).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention was filed, and having the teaching of Islam and Stark before her, to be motivated to combine the features from Stark with Islam, including, the calibration member comprises a plurality of size calibration parts with a gradient change in size and a plurality of color card calibration parts with a gradient change in gray value (see, Fig. 3, and detailed description, including, contrast sheet 300 is pure white in color so that it is possible to get good image delineation against the background. Calibration target 302 is both a size and color scale image that is used by the present arrangement to judge the size of image 202 (by reference) as well as to adjust for background lighting, para. 0031);
the visual inspection apparatus is further configured to obtain a first image of the size calibration part and a second image of the color card calibration part and send the first image and the second image to the upper computer (see, detailed instructions, including, film 200 is hung on contrast sheet 300 next to calibration target 302, such that both image 202 and calibration target 302 are captured in the electronic image 400. As an additional feature, once image 202 is captured, the present arrangement may allow for dimensional markings 602, para. 0033); and
the upper computer is further configured to determine, based on the first image and/or the second image, the systematic calibration result of the visual inspection apparatus (see, Fig. 4, and detailed description, including, converts the monochrome color density image 202 into a multi-color map 402 where different colors are assigned to different color densities from image 202. For example, in the present example if image 202 is a monochrome color density image using magenta, then pseudo-color map 402 generated by processor 12 will have the same dimensions but instead of using one color will re-represent darker color dense regions of image 202 as purple/violet colors on map 402 with lighter color dense regions of image 202 re-represented on map 402 as red color, with the in between color densities of image 202 represented using the various colors of the visible spectrum (red-orange-yellow-green-blue-violet) for the mid-range color densities of image 202, para. 0038).
Therefore, a rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the element as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.1
With regards to claim 3, Islam discloses:
3. The visual inspection system according to claim 2, wherein the visual calibration apparatus further comprises:
a support base (see, Fig. 2, and detailed description, including, the robot 250 may have a base 252 and a robot arm that is movable relative to the base 252, para. 0046); and
a driving apparatus, comprising a fixed part and a movable part moving linearly relative to each other, wherein the fixed part is disposed on the support base, and the movable part is connected to the mounting plate (see, as above, Fig. 2, and detailed description, including, the robot 250 may have a base 252 and a robot arm that is movable relative to the base 252, para. 0046).
With regards to claim 4, Islam discloses:
4. The visual inspection system according to claim 3, wherein the visual calibration apparatus further comprises a sliding guide structure, wherein the sliding guide structure comprises a sliding rail and a slider in sliding fit with each other, and the sliding rail and the slider are disposed between the support base and the mounting plate (see, Fig. 5, and detailed description, including, the verification image coordinate may be determined in a manner similar to that for the reference image coordinate. For instance, the verification image coordinate may be a center coordinate of the verification symbol (e.g., 530), and may be determined as an average of a center coordinate of a first shape of the verification symbol (e.g., 530) and a center coordinate of a second shape of the verification symbol in the verification image (e.g., 760), wherein the slider/rail is interpreted as a support for the angular movement about a reference location, para. 0074).
With regard to claim 12, claim 12 (a method claim) recites substantially similar limitations to at least a portion of claim 2 (a system claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/043476 A1 to Stark et al. (hereinafter Stark) and further in view of Edwards et al. “NextGen Calibration 1-15 Utility for Tool Setup and Matching in Real-Time Automated Visual Inspection Systems” Annual Semi Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference (ASMC) IEEE, pages 1-6, 24 August 2020 (2020-08-24) (hereinafter Edwards).
With regards to claim 5, neither Islam, nor Stark explicitly disclose:
5. The visual inspection system according to claim 4, wherein the visual calibration apparatus further comprises an adapting seat, the sliding rail is provided in two, and the slider is correspondingly provided in two; and
the sliding rail and the slider fitting with each other as one set are disposed between the support base and the adapting seat, and the sliding rail and the slider fitting with each other as another set are disposed between the mounting plate and the adapting seat.
Edwards discloses:
the visual calibration apparatus further comprises an adapting seat, the sliding rail is provided in two, and the slider is correspondingly provided in two (see, Fig. 2, pg. 2, The tray is composed of three heights: one slightly taller than the highest expected imaging surface, one at the nominal z-height (defined as midpoint), and one slightly lower than the lowest expected imaging surface. The nominal surface contains three different targets: a white, gray, and checkerboard target. The gray target in the nominal z-plane is used to perform the flat-field correction and the white target is used for white balance; and
the sliding rail and the slider fitting with each other as one set are disposed between the support base and the adapting seat, and the sliding rail and the slider fitting with each other as another set are disposed between the mounting plate and the adapting seat (see, as above, pg. 2, IV Tray Design, The three gray targets, one at each height, are used to characterize the ZoI by measuring the average gray-level in each plane. This allows the user to very accurately align the lighting by ensuring the z-profile hits the target values and is thus both sufficiently symmetric and at the exact intensity in each plane.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention was filed, and having the teaching of Islam and Stark and Edwards before her, to be motivated to combine the features from Edwards with Islam and Stark, including, the visual calibration apparatus further comprises an adapting seat, the sliding rail is provided in two, and the slider is correspondingly provided in two (see, Fig. 2, pg. 2, The tray is composed of three heights: one slightly taller than the highest expected imaging surface, one at the nominal z-height (defined as midpoint), and one slightly lower than the lowest expected imaging surface. The nominal surface contains three different targets: a white, gray, and checkerboard target. The gray target in the nominal z-plane is used to perform the flat-field correction and the white target is used for white balance; and
the sliding rail and the slider fitting with each other as one set are disposed between the support base and the adapting seat, and the sliding rail and the slider fitting with each other as another set are disposed between the mounting plate and the adapting seat (see, as above, pg. 2, IV Tray Design, The three gray targets, one at each height, are used to characterize the ZoI by measuring the average gray-level in each plane. This allows the user to very accurately align the lighting by ensuring the z-profile hits the target values and is thus both sufficiently symmetric and at the exact intensity in each plane.
Therefore, a rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the element as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.2
6. Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230400294 A1 to Jo et al. (hereinafter Jo).
With regard to claim 7, Islam fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the size calibration part comprises a protrusion or recess formed on the plate body.
Jo discloses: wherein the size calibration part comprises a protrusion or recess formed on the plate body (see, Fig. 5, and detailed description, including, 6b may be a protrusion protruding from each of the top and bottom surfaces of the correction specimen 6. The protrusion disposed on the top surface of the correction specimen 6 and the protrusion disposed on the bottom surface of the correction specimen 6 may have the same size and shape, para. 0048).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention was filed, and having the teaching of Islam and Jo before her, to be motivated to combine the features from Jo with Islam, including, wherein the size calibration part comprises a protrusion or recess formed on the plate body (see, Fig. 5, and detailed description, including, 6b may be a protrusion protruding from each of the top and bottom surfaces of the correction specimen 6. The protrusion disposed on the top surface of the correction specimen 6 and the protrusion disposed on the bottom surface of the correction specimen 6 may have the same size and shape, para. 0048).
Therefore, a rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the element as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.3
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The objected claims are reproduced below for convenience.
13. The visual inspection method according to claim 11, wherein the visual inspection method further comprises:
in a case of having received a calibration instruction, sending, by the upper computer, the calibration instruction to the visual inspection apparatus; and
in a case of having received the calibration instruction, notifying, by the visual inspection apparatus, a workstation controller to stop material delivery.
14. The visual inspection method according to claim 13, wherein the visual inspection method further comprises:
in a case of having detected that no material is present at a calibration position, notifying, by the visual inspection apparatus, a driving apparatus in the visual calibration apparatus to move the calibration member to the calibration position, wherein the calibration position is located within the inspection range of the visual inspection apparatus; and
in a case of having detected that a material is present at the calibration position, keeping inspecting, by the visual inspection apparatus, the current material at the calibration position until a target material leaves the calibration position, and notifying the driving apparatus in the visual calibration apparatus to move the calibration member to the calibration position.
15. The visual inspection method according to claim 12, wherein the visual inspection method further comprises:
in a case of having detected the first image and/or the second image, notifying, by the visual inspection apparatus, a driving apparatus in the visual calibration apparatus to move the calibration member out of the calibration position.
16. The visual inspection method according to claim 11, wherein the visual inspection method further comprises:
in a case that the systematic calibration result is normal, notifying, by the upper computer, the workstation controller to start material delivery; and
in a case that the systematic calibration result is abnormal, notifying, by the upper computer, all inspection devices to perform shutdown inspection, and giving an alarm.
17. The visual inspection method according to claim 12, wherein the visual inspection method further comprises:
performing, by the upper computer, visual accuracy calibration based on the first image to obtain a visual accuracy calibration result;
performing, by the upper computer, imaging effect calibration based on the second image to obtain an imaging effect calibration result;
in a case that both the visual accuracy calibration result and the imaging effect calibration result are normal calibration results, performing, by the upper computer, visual algorithm calibration based on a target image to obtain a visual algorithm calibration result; and
determining, by the upper computer, the systematic calibration result of the visual inspection apparatus based on the visual accuracy calibration result, the imaging effect calibration result, and the visual algorithm calibration result.
18. The visual inspection method according to claim 17, wherein the performing, by the upper computer, visual accuracy calibration based on the first image to obtain a visual accuracy calibration result comprises:
determining, by the upper computer, a first difference between a preset standard value and a measurement value corresponding to a structural parameter of the size calibration part in the first image; and
in a case that the first difference is greater than or equal to a first parameter threshold range, obtaining, by the upper computer, a calibration result indicating that visual accuracy of the visual inspection apparatus is abnormal; or
in a case that the first difference is less than the first parameter threshold range, obtaining, by the upper computer, a calibration result indicating that visual accuracy of the visual inspection apparatus is normal.
19. The visual inspection method according to claim 18, further comprising:
determining, by the upper computer, the first parameter threshold range based on a tolerance corresponding to the structural parameter.
20. The visual inspection method according to claim 18, wherein the visual inspection method further comprises:
performing, by the upper computer, inspection on the first image through a target visual algorithm to obtain a target standard value corresponding to the structural parameter;
determining, by the upper computer, a second difference between the target standard value and the measurement value corresponding to the structural parameter of the size calibration part in the first image; and
in a case that the second difference is greater than or equal to a second parameter threshold range, obtaining, by the upper computer, a calibration result indicating that a result of a visual algorithm of the visual inspection apparatus is abnormal; or
in a case that the second difference is less than the second parameter threshold range, obtaining, by the upper computer, a calibration result indicating that a result of a visual algorithm of the visual inspection apparatus is normal.
21. The visual inspection method according to claim 17, wherein the performing, by the upper computer, imaging effect calibration based on the second image to obtain an imaging effect calibration result comprises:
determining, by the upper computer, a third difference between a preset gray value and the gray value of the color card calibration part in the second image; and
in a case that the third difference is greater than or equal to a third parameter threshold range, determining, by the upper computer, an inspection result indicating that an imaging effect of the visual inspection apparatus is abnormal; or
in a case that the third difference is less than the third parameter threshold range, determining, by the upper computer, an inspection result indicating that an imaging effect of the visual inspection apparatus is normal.
22. The visual inspection method according to claim 11, wherein the visual inspection method further comprises:
performing, by the upper computer, inspection on a second image through a target visual algorithm to obtain a target gray value;
determining, by the upper computer, a fourth difference between a target gray value and a gray value of a color card calibration part in the second image; and
in a case that the fourth difference is greater than or equal to a fourth parameter threshold range, obtaining, by the upper computer, a calibration result indicating that a result of a visual algorithm of the visual inspection apparatus is abnormal; or
in a case that the fourth difference is less than the fourth parameter threshold range, obtaining, by the upper computer, a calibration result indicating that a result of a visual algorithm of the visual inspection apparatus is normal.
23. The visual inspection method according to claim 17, before the performing, by the upper computer, visual algorithm calibration based on a target image to obtain a visual algorithm calibration result, further comprising:
obtaining, by the upper computer, a first image, second image, third image, and fourth image with parameter values calibrated, wherein the parameter value of the first image is within a first range, the parameter value of the second image is within a second range, the parameter value of the third image is within a third range, and the parameter value of the fourth image is within a fourth range, wherein the first range is different from the second range, and the third range is different from the fourth range; and
evaluating, by the upper computer, a sample image through a target visual inspection algorithm to obtain the first image, second image, third image, and fourth image with parameter values calibrated.
24. The visual inspection method according to claim 23, wherein the establishing, by the upper computer, an image calibration library based on the first image, the second image, the third image, and the fourth image comprises:
numbering, by the upper computer, the first image, the second image, the third image, and the fourth image; and
establishing, by the upper computer, the image calibration library based on the numbered first image, second image, third image, and fourth image.
25. The visual inspection method according to claim 23, before the obtaining, by the upper computer, a first image, second image, third image, and fourth image with parameter values calibrated, further comprising:
evaluating, by the upper computer, a sample image through a target visual inspection algorithm to obtain the first image, second image, third image, and fourth image with parameter values calibrated.
26. The visual inspection method according to claim 23, wherein the performing, by the upper computer, visual algorithm calibration based on a target image to obtain a visual algorithm calibration result comprises:
selecting, by the upper computer, a target image from the image calibration library;
performing, by the upper computer, image recognition on the target image through the visual inspection apparatus to obtain a parameter value of the target image;
comparing, by the upper computer, the parameter value with a calibrated parameter value corresponding to the target image; and
in a case that a difference between the parameter value and the calibrated parameter value corresponding to the target image exceeds a fifth parameter threshold range, determining, by the upper computer, that visual algorithm is abnormal.
A sampling of the prior art made of record and not relied upon and considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure includes: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0330420 A1 to Kim et al. Discusses: A method of verifying a fault of an inspection unit, an inspection apparatus, and an inspection system are disclosed. The method according to the present disclosure includes: providing a verification reference body which is formed on a frame attached to an inspection system; placing the inspection unit on the verification reference body; obtaining image data of the verification reference body through the inspection unit; verifying a fault of the inspection unit by extracting a movement error and height error of the inspection unit from the image data; and generating a verification result indicating the fault of the inspection unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D. TITCOMB whose telephone number is (571)270-5190. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM (M-F).
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, Stephen C. Hong can be reached at 571-272-4124. 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.
WILLIAM D. TITCOMB
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2178
/WILLIAM D TITCOMB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178 1-22-2026
1 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (2007).
2 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (2007).
3 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (2007).