CTFR 18/496,704 CTFR 84383 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Response to Arguments In view of the amendment to the title, the objection to the specification is withdrawn. In view of the amendment to claim 1, the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation of claims 1-15 is withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Examiner notes that cited prior art is argued only in that the amended language is not taught. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 7-14 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 7 recites the limitation " the control .” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner notes that claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, has instantiated “ a control unit. ” Claims 8-14 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 7. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-11 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al., (US Pub No. 20090207449) in view of Tsukano (US Pub No. 20160044209) . Claim 1: Johnson discloses an information processing apparatus [Abstract] comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the instructions, or circuitry, or a combination of both [processor 107 operates according to a software program 108, p0033] , that function as: an inspecting unit configured to inspect a printed material with a parameter for inspection based on a read image obtained by reading the printed material [data about a property related to a proof or other product produced by the printing system is read using any of a few well-known techniques, such as using a measurement device or scanner to measure or scan the product, p0060] ; a management unit configured to manage first information relating to an inspection result obtained by inspection performed by the inspecting unit [Once the data about the property or machine is read from a proof or other product, the processor 107 translates that data and compares it to benchmark data (e.g., acceptable spectral values or ranges) that has previously been stored in database 110, p0033 & p0062] ; a generating unit configured to generate data for displaying second information indicating temporal change in the inspection result based on the first information [performance and trend analysis which allows such users to check historical performance and improvements to the printing system … within display 800, the user 102 can also keep track and analyze visual color measurements as well as control color variations over time by clicking or selecting the trend analysis icon 818, p0039, p0046 & p0073] ; and a control unit configured to change the parameter based on the second information . Although Johnson discloses where once a difference between the measured value and benchmark and based on prior history is recognized thereby presenting the user with solutions [p0042 & p0073] , Johnson does not appear to explicitly disclose a control unit configured to change the parameter based on the second information. Tsukano discloses in a related system from the same field of endeavor [Abstract] an inspecting unit configured to inspect a printed material with a parameter for inspection based on a read image obtained by reading the printed material [the control section 21 (color calibration controlling section 21c) determines a region or an object that use the color defined in the above step by referring to the result of analysis of a print job conducted by the control section 21 (RIP processing section 21a), operates the color measuring section 35 of printer 30 to measure the defined color of the region or object one by one to obtain data of the measured color values of the defined color (S102), p0062] ; a management unit configured to manage first information relating to an inspection result obtained by inspection performed by the inspecting unit [the control section 21 (color calibration controlling section 21c) determines whether to calibrate printer 30 … control section 21 may determine to calibrate the printer 30 when the change with time in the measured color value of at least one of the colors for determining a calibration necessity exceeds the predetermined range or when the difference of the measured color value of at least one of the colors and the corresponding reference value exceeds the predetermined range, p0063 & p0066] ; a generating unit configured to generate data for displaying second information indicating temporal change in the inspection result based on the first information [the control section 21 (color calibration controlling section 21c) determines whether to calibrate printer 30 according to whether a change with time in the measured color value of the color for determining color calibration necessity fells within a predetermined range or whether the difference of the measured color value of the color for determining color calibration necessity and the color value (reference value) set in the print data fells within a predetermined range (S103) [ second information ], p0063] ; and a control unit configured to change the parameter based on the second information [if the control section 21 has determined to calibrate the printer 30, the control section 21 (color calibration controlling section 21c) operates the print processing section 34 of the printer 30 to print out a color chart to be used for color measurement … the control section 21 may use plural colors for determining a color calibration necessity and determine whether to calibrate the printer 30 on the basis of each of the plural colors [ interpreted to mean that the control unit changes a parameter for what is or isn’t to be used for measurement and/or calibration ] … control section 21 causes color measuring section 35 of printer 30 to measure colors of a region or object in the selected specific color or colors, and determines whether to calibrate printer 30 according to a change with time of the measured color values [ interpreted to mean that the control unit changes a parameter for what is or isn’t to be used for measurement and/or calibration ], p0064, p0066-0067 & p0076] . It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have included in Johnson the support allowing a control unit to change the parameter based on the second information as taught by Tsukano because such control can realize a reduction of waist or spoiled sheets of paper, a reduction of the amount of consumption of consumables, and a reduction of waiting time for printing as discussed by Tsukano in at least paragraph 0067. Claim 2: Johnson in view of Tsukano discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second information is a graph indicating temporal change in the inspection result [within display 800, the user 102 can also keep track and analyze visual color measurements as well as control color variations [i.e., temporal changes ] over time by clicking or selecting the trend analysis icon 818, p0039, p0046 & p0073] . Claim 3: Johnson in view of Tsukano discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where there is a plurality of inspection items for the inspecting unit, the generating unit generates the data for displaying the second information for each of the inspection items [processor 107 operates according to a software program 108, which is able to monitor a printing system by using sensors in the printing system for checking the status of each component and/or monitoring numerous properties of components of the printing system and/or printed materials that come from the printing system to check for their accuracy and quality … the server 104 generates reports regarding the overall or specific performance of any or all of printing system(s) 105 or any components thereof. These reports can consist of any data retrieved from database 118 and thereby include the status of the printing system 105 at certain time periods and/or whether the components or products met a particular benchmark, environmental conditions and the like, p0033 & p0052] . Claim 4: Johnson in view of Tsukano discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second information includes a tolerance value corresponding to the inspection result for each inspection item, and the tolerance value for an inspection item related to an image quality defect is lower than the tolerance value for an inspection item not related to the image quality defect [Database 110 can have tables which a) maintain user 102 information, b) maintain specific information about the devices on the printing system 106, c) store benchmark and tolerance ranges, and d) track the most recent measurement data and data related to the success or failure of measurement comparisons to benchmarks … System 100 uses these tolerance values to classify any deviation and whether such deviation is acceptable to a user, p0036 & p0047] . Claim 5: Johnson in view of Tsukano discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the generating unit generates the data while the inspecting unit continues inspection, and wherein the data is output every time the data is generated [Database 110 can have tables which a) maintain user 102 information, b) maintain specific information about the devices on the printing system 106, c) store benchmark and tolerance ranges, and d) track the most recent measurement data [i.e., every time data is generate ] and data related to the success or failure of measurement comparisons to benchmarks … remote database 118 maintains long term information storage of all tracked conditions while the local database 110 preferably stores data for a more concise period of time (e.g., the last 24 hours). Additionally, unlike local database 110, which stores information about that specific user, remote database 118 preferably stores data about all user locations … System 100 uses these tolerance values to classify any deviation and whether such deviation is acceptable to a user, p0036-0038 & p0047] . Claim 6: Johnson in view of Tsukano discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein, every time a new inspection result is obtained by the inspecting unit performing an inspection, the generating unit generates the data so as to include the new inspection result in the second information [Database 110 can have tables which a) maintain user 102 information, b) maintain specific information about the devices on the printing system 106, c) store benchmark and tolerance ranges, and d) track the most recent measurement data [i.e., every time data is generate] and data related to the success or failure of measurement comparisons to benchmarks … remote database 118 maintains long term information storage of all tracked conditions while the local database 110 preferably stores data for a more concise period of time (e.g., the last 24 hours). Additionally, unlike local database 110, which stores information about that specific user, remote database 118 preferably stores data about all user locations … System 100 uses these tolerance values to classify any deviation and whether such deviation is acceptable to a user, p0036-0039 & p0047] . Claim 7: Johnson in view of Tsukano discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control [ unit ] controls an inspection level of the inspecting unit to be changed in a case where the inspection result satisfies a predetermined condition [the user is able to set tolerance values to set deviations that are acceptable to the user 102 … System 100 uses these tolerance values to classify any deviation and whether such deviation is acceptable to a user … This value can either be an indication that the proof is "ok" or that the proof "is out of tolerance" [ interpreted to mean providing the user sufficient information to make a decision regarding setting tolerance values ] … if a particular user is not as concerned with a particular color property in their end-product, the range of appropriate property benchmark values for that particular color in the database can be quite broad [ interpreted as controlling the inspection level being relaxed ]. Conversely, if a particular color property is quite vital to an end product, the range for that particular property will be narrowed or even require an exact match [ interpreted as controlling the inspection level being tight ], p0047, p0050 & p0066] . Claim 8: Johnson in view of Tsukano discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the control unit controls the inspection level of the inspecting unit to be more relaxed in a case where a value based on the inspection result exceeds a predetermined value, and wherein the inspecting unit continues inspection with the inspection level changed by the control unit [display can be color-coded to show the severity of any errors in the print systems being monitored. For example, a print system listed in red can mean that a severe condition exists because there were more than a certain number of read errors in the last 24 hours, a yellow listing can indicate that a severe condition existed in the print system in the last two days, and a green listing can indicate that there has not been a severe condition in the last two days. Additionally, the user can click or select any particular listing from within the widget application and get more detailed information about the error that has occurred. This widget application can be designed in numerous ways as is known in the programming art and can show the user 102 various degrees of information about the print system and errors that have occurred over the last set period of time … processor 107 has indicated a "fail" condition [e.g., out of tolerance condition ], the system attempts to ensure that the fail condition was not caused by a failure in the hardware or improper input by the user and that the proof or product was read properly. Thus, processor 107 will also test to determine whether there was a misread [e.g., continued inspection ]. Isolating misreads either by device or user error insures that the "error" is isolated before any unnecessary queries or corrective steps are taken [ interpreted to mean more relaxed since remedy is not immediately executed ], p0054, p0061 & p0067] . Claim 9: Johnson in view of Tsukano discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 8. Johnson discloses wherein the value based on the inspection result indicates any one of the number of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection failed [processor 107 has indicated a "fail" condition [e.g., out of tolerance condition ], the system attempts to ensure that the fail condition was not caused by a failure in the hardware or improper input by the user and that the proof or product was read properly. Thus, processor 107 will also test to determine whether there was a misread [e.g., continued inspection ]. Isolating misreads either by device or user error insures that the "error" is isolated before any unnecessary queries or corrective steps are taken [ interpreted to mean more relaxed since remedy is not immediately executed ], p0067] , a ratio of the number of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection failed to the number of inspections, a value indicating an amount of change in the number determined as inspection failed, or an amount of change in the ratio . Johnson appears to fail to explicitly disclose a ratio of the number of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection failed to the number of inspections, a value indicating an amount of change in the number determined as inspection failed, or an amount of change in the ratio. Tsukano discloses a ratio of the number of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection failed to the number of inspections, a value indicating an amount of change in the number determined as inspection failed, or an amount of change in the ratio [the control section 21 (color defining section 21b) is needed only to obtain the success rate of color reproduction for each color from the database. In this example, the control section 11 calculates the success rate of color reproduction for each color, but the control section 11 may calculate, for example, a variation of color reproduction (measured color values) in place of or in addition to the success ratio of color reproduction [ ratio of success inherently also would be representative of ratio of failures ]. The control section 21 may calculate the variation for each color by using a sum of standard deviations of component values of the L*a*b* color space (L*, a*, b* values) corresponding to the measured color value; a sum of weighted standard deviations of component values of the L*a*b* color space corresponding to the measured color value; a variance of each of the component values of the L*a*b* color space, which represents how much a sample is dispersed from the sample mean; or a difference between the maximum value and the minimum value of each of the component values of the L*a*b* color space corresponding to the measured color value, p0057] . It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have included in Johnson the support allowing a control unit to control an inspection level utilizing a ratio of the number of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection failed to the number of inspections, a value indicating an amount of change in the number determined as inspection failed, or an amount of change in the ratio as taught by Tsukano because such control can realize a reduction of waist or spoiled sheets of paper, a reduction of the amount of consumption of consumables, and a reduction of waiting time for printing as discussed by Tsukano in at least paragraph 0067. Claim 10: Johnson in view of Tsukano discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein, in a case where there is a plurality of inspection items for the inspecting unit, the control unit determines whether the inspection result of each inspection item satisfies the predetermined condition, and controls the inspection level of the inspection item determined to satisfy the predetermined condition to be changed [the user is able to set tolerance values to set deviations that are acceptable to the user 102 … System 100 uses these tolerance values to classify any deviation and whether such deviation is acceptable to a user … This value can either be an indication that the proof is "ok" or that the proof "is out of tolerance" … processor 107 has indicated a "fail" condition [e.g., out of tolerance condition ], the system attempts to ensure that the fail condition was not caused by a failure in the hardware or improper input by the user and that the proof or product was read properly. Thus, processor 107 will also test to determine whether there was a misread [e.g., continued inspection ]. Isolating misreads either by device or user error insures that the "error" is isolated before any unnecessary queries or corrective steps are taken [ interpreted to mean more relaxed since remedy is not immediately executed , p0047, p0050 & p0067 – NOTE: this is a contingency limitation. When the “in a case” does not happen, then the remainder of the contingency does not happen either. The limitation is only cited for the convenience of the applicant as the cited reference includes sufficient structure to perform the function should the “case” occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II)] . Claim 11: Johnson in view of Tsukano discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the control unit controls the inspection level to be changed only for an inspection item related to an image quality defect [the user is able to set tolerance values to set deviations that are acceptable to the user 102 … System 100 uses these tolerance values to classify any deviation and whether such deviation is acceptable to a user … This value can either be an indication that the proof is "ok" or that the proof "is out of tolerance" [ interpreted to mean providing the user sufficient information to make a decision regarding setting tolerance values ], p0047 & p0050] . Claim 15: Johnson in view of Tsukano discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Johnson appears to fail to explicitly disclose wherein the inspection result includes at least one of a ratio of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection failed the number of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection failed, a ratio of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection passed, and the number of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection passed. Tsukano discloses wherein the inspection result includes at least one of a ratio of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection failed the number of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection failed, a ratio of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection passed, and the number of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection passed [the control section 21 (color defining section 21b) is needed only to obtain the success rate of color reproduction for each color from the database. In this example, the control section 11 calculates the success rate of color reproduction for each color, but the control section 11 may calculate, for example, a variation of color reproduction (measured color values) in place of or in addition to the success ratio of color reproduction [ ratio of success inherently also would be representative of ratio of failures. Since a ratio is calculated utilizing a total number of samples, i.e., inspections, in the denominator, the number represented in the numerator of the calculated ratio is representative of those that passed. Inherently the total – passed = failed allowing for a failure ratio to be easily calculated ]. The control section 21 may calculate the variation for each color by using a sum of standard deviations of component values of the L*a*b* color space (L*, a*, b* values) corresponding to the measured color value; a sum of weighted standard deviations of component values of the L*a*b* color space corresponding to the measured color value; a variance of each of the component values of the L*a*b* color space, which represents how much a sample is dispersed from the sample mean; or a difference between the maximum value and the minimum value of each of the component values of the L*a*b* color space corresponding to the measured color value, p0057] . It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have included in Johnson the support wherein the inspection result includes at least one of a ratio of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection failed the number of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection failed, a ratio of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection passed, and the number of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection passed as taught by Tsukano because such control can realize a reduction of waist or spoiled sheets of paper, a reduction of the amount of consumption of consumables, and a reduction of waiting time for printing as discussed by Tsukano in at least paragraph 0067. Claims 16 and 17: the method and program herein have been executed or performed by the apparatus of claim 1 and are therefore likewise rejected . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al., (US Pub No. 20090207449) in view of Tsukano (US Pub No. 20160044209) and in further view of Yanagawa (US Pub No. 20110179961) . Claim 12: Johnson in view of Tsukano discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the one or more processors, the circuitry or the combination of both further function as a setting unit configured to set a first mode for ending the inspection performed by the inspecting unit or a second mode for continuing the inspection performed by the inspecting unit [from display 800, user 102 can define and create a print target by clicking or selecting icon 820. The "print target" defines the dot area values that are to be verified on a printing plate, the target values, and the allowed tolerances, p0047] , wherein, in a case where the inspection result satisfies the predetermined condition, if a mode set by the setting unit is the second mode, the control unit controls the inspection level to be changed [the user is able to set tolerance values to set deviations that are acceptable to the user 102 … System 100 uses these tolerance values to classify any deviation and whether such deviation is acceptable to a user … This value can either be an indication that the proof is "ok" or that the proof "is out of tolerance" [ interpreted to mean providing the user sufficient information to make a decision regarding setting tolerance values ], p0047, p0050 & p0066 – NOTE: this is a contingency limitation. When the “in a case” does not happen, then the remainder of the contingency does not happen either. The limitation is only cited for the convenience of the applicant as the cited reference includes sufficient structure to perform the function should the “case” occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II)] . Johnson nor Tsukano appear to disclose setting a first mode for ending the inspection performed by the inspecting unit. Yanagawa discloses in a related system from the same field of endeavor [Abstract] comprising a setting unit configured to set a first mode for ending the inspection performed by the inspecting unit or a second mode for continuing the inspection performed by the inspecting unit [print settings include print information (such as the number of pages of a document to be printed, sheet size, one-sided/double-sided printing, and finishing mode) and inspection information (such as inspection execution mode/inspection off mode , inspection judgment threshold value, printing displacement allowable value, and book-binding printing displacement allowable value), p0086] , wherein, in a case where the inspection result satisfies the predetermined condition [i.e., not satisfied so “case” doesn’t occur ] , if a mode set by the setting unit is the second mode, the control unit controls the inspection level to be changed [threshold values respectively corresponding to the levels 1 to 10 is transmitted as the inspection judgment threshold value to the printing controller 20, p0086 – NOTE: this is a contingency limitation. When the “in a case” does not happen, then the remainder of the contingency does not happen either. The limitation is only cited for the convenience of the applicant as the cited reference includes sufficient structure to perform the function should the “case” occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II)] . It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have explicitly provided in Johnson in view of Tsukano the support for setting a first mode for ending the inspection performed by the inspecting unit or a second mode for continuing the inspection performed by the inspecting unit Claim 13: Johnson in view of Tsukano and Yanagawa discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein, in a case where the inspection result satisfies the predetermined condition [i.e., not satisfied so “case” doesn’t occur ] , if the mode set by the setting unit is the first mode, the inspection level is not changed by the control unit, and the inspection performed by the inspecting unit is ended [NOTE: this is a contingency limitation. When the “in a case” does not happen, then the remainder of the contingency does not happen either. See MPEP 2111.04(II)] . Claim 14: Johnson in view of Tsukano and Yanagawa discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein, in a case where the inspection result satisfies the predetermined condition [i.e., not satisfied so “case” doesn’t occur ] , if the mode set by the setting unit is the first mode, printing a printing unit ends the printing [NOTE: this is a contingency limitation. When the “in a case” does not happen, then the remainder of the contingency does not happen either. See MPEP 2111.04(II)] . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Johnson, US Patent No. 7152941, discloses where a calibration mode can be automatically selected by the calibration system according to default settings or customer preferred settings, the quantity of printed pages output by the printer for select intervals, at scheduled times or when the established correlation between the measured colorant levels and the measured color values has degraded, or when irregularities are observed by the calibration system 200 in the first calibration mode 302. 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 Application/Control Number: 18/496,704 Page 2 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/496,704 Page 3 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/496,704 Page 4 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/496,704 Page 5 Art Unit: 2682
Prosecution Insights