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 .
In amendments dated 09/04/2026, applicant keeps claims 1 and 3 – 20; and added a new claim 21. Claims 1 and 3 – 21 are now pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks on pages 11 - 14 the Applicant argues that Kimura (like Shibata) does not teach or reasonable suggest generating image data in which acquisition (including error information) is displayed simultaneously and in association with environment information, as in the manner recited in independent claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the following reasons: Claims require an apparatus acquiring at least job information, error information, time information, or machine information of a printer; acquiring environment information (e.g. temperature and humidity); generate data to be displayed simultaneously in association with the acquired environment information; and display the generated data on a display device. Therefore, Shibata teaches: Within ¶0005, ¶0036, ¶0041 and ¶0050, acquiring at least job information (e.g., a sheet type, a sheet brand, and so forth), time information (e.g., lifetime, remaining days, etc.) and error (¶0097 - ¶0098 and ¶0127) of an image forming apparatus 101; in ¶0044, acquiring (detecting) environment information (temperature & humidity); in ¶0057 - ¶0058, ¶0067 and ¶0074, in order to display a screen, all acquired information are analyzed to “generate data”, at least, an acquired information is associated with the acquired environment information (e.g., refer to ¶0044 and Fig. 19); then within ¶0044, ¶0057 - ¶0060, ¶0067 and Figs. 6D, 7 and 19, display/output the generated data, the data within is shown at the same time (e.g., said sheet type and basis weight in which is associated to temperature as per ¶0044, ¶0058 - ¶0060, ¶0067 - ¶0069, ¶0113 and Figs. 6C, 6D and 19). All information acquired to analyzed corresponds to the data generated to be displayed. The sheet type and the basis weight associated to environment displayed in a screen corresponds to both information displayed simultaneously. Kimura is merely indicating an occurrence in an error information, as shown in ¶0051 - ¶0052, ¶0092, ¶0133 and Fig. 8. The error information indicating the type of error corresponds to the error information acquired. Furthermore, the prior-cited references continue to meet the limitations of the claims. Accordingly, this argument fails to be persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/01/2026 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is already considered by the examiner.
The IDS was considered in an Office Action dated 06/01/2026, but a 1449 was not generated by then. Examiner re-considered said IDS filed on 04/01/2026.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2023/0061231 A1, previously cited in an Office action dated 02/20/2026, hereinafter ‘Shibata’) in view of Kimura (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2022/0131997 A1, hereinafter ‘Kimura’).
With respect to claim 1, Shibata teaches an information processing apparatus (e.g. a server 104, ¶0034 - ¶0036, Fig. 1) comprising: a hardware processor configured to: acquire acquisition information of an image forming apparatus, the acquisition information including at least one of job information, error information, time information, or machine information of the image forming apparatus (e.g., acquiring job history information, job information, log information, replacement information of components, and so forth from an image forming apparatus, ¶0034, ¶0036, ¶0041, ¶0050, ¶0055); acquire environment information of the image forming apparatus, the environment information including temperature information and humidity information of the image forming apparatus (e.g., acquiring temperature and humidity from a environment sensor 420, in which is by (around) said image forming apparatus, ¶0044); and generate, as display information to be displayed on a display device, image data in which the acquired acquisition information is displayed simultaneously and in association with the acquired environment information (e.g., generate, as display information to be displayed on an operation display section 429, maintenance information, lifetime or consumable component information in which at least job history information, consumable component name, device information, job information, log information or replacement information of components is concurrently displayed (Figs. 6F, Fig. 7 – show information together at the same time) and in association with the acquired temperature and/or humidity (e.g., environment condition) upon recalculation, ¶0044 - ¶045, ¶0057 - ¶0061, ¶0072 - ¶0074, ¶0098, Fig. 7, Fig. 11 & Fig. 19), but fails to teach that said information processing apparatus is operably coupled to a display device, and output the generated display information to the display device, so as to display the generated display information on the display device, wherein the acquisition includes the error information, and wherein the error information includes information indication an occurrence of at least one of a sheet shortage, a sheet jam, a full tray or a toner shortage.
However, in the same field of endeavor of receiving error information and displaying received error information, the mentioned claimed limitations are well-known in the art as evidenced by Kimura. In particular, Kimura teaches: an information processing apparatus is operably coupled to a display device (e.g., a management server is operably coupled to a display 220, ¶0114 - ¶0115), and output generated display information to the display device, so as to display the generated display information on the display device (e.g., send a “caused” display error information to the display 220, so as to display error information on said display 220, Fig. 9, ¶0149),wherein an acquisition includes error information (e.g., wherein the acquiring includes error information, ¶0133), and wherein the error information includes information indication an occurrence of at least one of a sheet shortage, a sheet jam, a full tray or a toner shortage (e.g., wherein said error information includes at least a paper jam and/or remaining toner amount1, ¶0051 - ¶0052, ¶0092, ¶0133, Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to design the information processing apparatus of Shibata as taught by Kimura since Kimura suggested within ¶0051 - ¶0052, ¶0092, ¶0133, Fig. 8 that such modification/design would be convenient for the user to view both information in order to anticipate or prepare a corrective action to handle the error type.
With respect to claim 7, Shibata in view of Kimura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is configured to generate display information by associating the machine information with the environment information (e.g., generate maintenance information, lifetime or consumable component information by associating the device information with environment condition, ¶0044, ¶0074, Fig. 7).
With respect to claim 9, Shibata in view of Kimura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the environment information includes environment information of an image former provided in the image forming apparatus (e.g., said environment condition include information from any of components in the image forming apparatus, ¶0041, Fig. 6F).
With respect to claim 17, this is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the apparatus claim 1.
With respect to claim 18, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable. The use of a non-transitory storage medium executed by at least a computer (CPU) as described in claim 18 is explicitly taught by ¶0148 and claim 14 of Shibata.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata in view of Kimura and further in view of Brunner et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2017/0236042 A1, previously cited in the Office action dated 02/20/2026, hereinafter ‘Brunner’).
With respect to claim 3, Shibata in view of Kimura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach: wherein the hardware processor is configured: to change display information generated by associating the job information with the environment information into a format that classifies information by job, change display information generated by associating the error information with the environment information into a format that classifies information by error, change display information generated by associating the time information with the environment information into a format that classifies information by time, or change display information generated by associating the machine information with the environment information into a format that classifies information by machine.
However, the mentioned claimed limitations are well-known in the art as evidenced by Brunner. In particular, Brunner teaches wherein the hardware processor is configured to change display information generated by associating the job information with the environment information into a format that classifies information by job, change display information generated by associating the error information with the environment information into a format that classifies information by error, change display information generated by associating the time information with the environment information into a format that classifies information by time, or change display information generated by associating the machine information with the environment information into a format that classifies information by machine (e.g., change display information generated by associating at least a job information with environment information into an order/sort that arrange information by job, ¶0032, ¶0037, Fig. 2; or change display information generated by associating time information with environment information into an order that classified by time, ¶0032, ¶0036, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the information processing apparatus of Shibata in view of Kimura as taught by Brunner since Brunner suggested in ¶0032 - ¶0037 and Fig. 2 that such modification would have a schedule in order to avoid/reduce interruptions in a printing process, thereby its’s convenient that a plurality of print jobs is scheduled and sorted in advance.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata in view of Kimura and further in view of Oishi et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2023/0064610 A1, previously cited in the Office action dated 02/20/2026, hereinafter ‘Oishi’).
With respect to claim 4, Shibata in view of Kimura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach the hardware processor is configured to generate display information in which the environment information is unified for each day.
However, in the same field of endeavor of collecting temperature/humidity information, Oishi teaches the hardware processor is configured to generate display information in which the environment information is unified for each day (Oishi: e.g., generate display information in which temperature/humidity information is along each day, ¶0070 - ¶0071, ¶0075, Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the information processing apparatus of Shibata in view of Kimura as taught by Oishi since Oishi suggested within ¶0070 - ¶0071, ¶0075 and Fig. 5 that such modification (design) of generating/displaying environment information for each day would guide the user to categorize/classify the information in order to improve in productivity through reduction in standby time or down time.
With respect to claim 5, Shibata in view of Kimura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the hardware processor is configured to generate display information that is unified for each day and sorted according to the environment information.
However, in the same field of endeavor of collecting temperature/humidity information Oishi teaches wherein the hardware processor is configured to generate display information that is unified for each day and sorted according to the environment information (Oishi: e.g., Generate display information that is linked for each day and it’s displayed in time order linking with print conditions (temperature/humidity), ¶0075, Figs. 4 – 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the information processing apparatus of Shibata in view of Kimura as taught by Oishi since Oishi suggested within ¶0070 - ¶0071, ¶0075 and Fig. 5 that such modification of generating/displaying environment information for each day would guide the user to categorize/classify the information in order to improve in productivity through reduction in standby time or down time.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata in view of Kimura and further in view of Zhang et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2012/0041569 A1, previously cited in the Office action dated 02/20/2026, hereinafter ‘Zhang’).
With respect to claim 6, Shibata in view of Kimura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, where Shibata teaches everything except that the environment information is displayed along a time axis.
However, Zhang teaches generate display information that displays the environment information along a time axis (Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the information processing apparatus of Shibata in view of Kimura as taught by Zhang by adding the time-graphic of Zhang (Fig. 6) that such modification of displaying along would improve by showing/displaying history of cooling performance and/or may be implemented to provide cost and/or power savings when the performance is found to be within predetermined specifications.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata in view of Kimura and further in view of Sato et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2018/0245031 A1, hereinafter ‘Sato’).
With respect to claim 8, Shibata in view of Kimura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach: wherein the hardware processor is configured to generate display information in which the environment information is classified into arbitrary sections.
However, in the same field of endeavor of displaying processing, Sato teaches wherein the hardware processor is configured to generate display information in which the environment information is classified into arbitrary sections (e.g., A display unit 9 displays evaluation result of temperature adjustment performance of the temperature adjustment element 2 calculated by the calculation unit 8. The display unit 9 displays, for example, the temperature adjustment performance 10, the recommended date of replacement 11, and the change of the temperature adjustment performance 12 of the temperature adjustment element 2. As for the display of the temperature adjustment performance 10, it is conceivable that the temperature adjustment performance 10 is represented not only by a numeric value but also, after the performance is classified in any arbitrary ranges, it is represented by any warning display 10a of, for example, three warning stage displays such as “good”, “caution needed”, and “replacement needed” in accordance with the current condition of the temperature adjustment performance, ¶0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the information processing apparatus of Shibata in view of Kimura as taught by Sato since Sato suggested in ¶0029 that such modification of classifying into arbitrary sections would guide the user to categorize/classify the information in order to execute a simulation, the initial values of parameters such as temperature, a heat generation amount, and the like are set, or/and in order to lower a number of times of operation repetitions of which is deteriorated.
Claims 10 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata in view of Kimura and further in view of Noda (U.S Patent No. 10,048,908 B2, hereinafter ‘Noda’).
With respect to claim 10, Shibata in view of Kimura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the hardware processor is configured to: determine whether to issue a warning to a user, determine whether an environment of an image former provided in the image forming apparatus is unsuitable for image formation, and generate warning information when the environment is unsuitable.
However, in the same field of endeavor of collecting/acquiring environment information, Noda teaches wherein the hardware processor is configured to: determine whether to issue a warning to a user, determine whether an environment of an image former provided in the image forming apparatus is unsuitable for image formation, and generate warning information when the environment is unsuitable (Noda: e.g., when it is determined that effective ranges do not correspond to each other, image control CPU 113 controls LCD 141 to indicate a warning sign, Col 6 (lines 4 – 17); Col 7 (lines 23 – 48)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the information processing apparatus of Shibata in view of Kimura as taught by Noda since Noda suggested within Col 6 (lines 4 – 17) & Col 7 (lines 23 – 48) that such modification of warning the user would inform the user that parameters are not in effective range in order to suggest/recommend the user to change said parameters.
With respect to claim 11, Shibata in view of Kimura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the hardware processor is configured to output a control signal based on the environment information to an environment changer, the environment information comprises environment information of an image former provided in the image forming apparatus, and the hardware processor is configured to cause the environment changer to perform control in accordance with the environment information of the image former by outputting a control signal based on the environment information of the image former to the environment changer.
However, Noda teaches wherein the hardware processor is configured to output a control signal based on the environment information to an environment changer, the environment information comprises environment information of an image former provided in the image forming apparatus, and the hardware processor is configured to cause the environment changer to perform control in accordance with the environment information of the image former by outputting a control signal based on the environment information of the image former to the environment changer (e.g., configured to send a signal based on a change made in the environment information, the environment information contains information required to change setting for the job (already started), the signal is sent once the environment information is changed, Col 4 (lines 26 – 40)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the information processing apparatus of Shibata in view of Kimura as taught by Noda since Noda suggested within Col 4 (lines 26 - 40) that such modification of changing setting for the job would correct/edit the setting for the job in order to continue/resume printing operation under accepted environment conditions.
With respect to claim 12, Shibata in view of Kimura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the environment information comprises environment information of a sheet feeder provided in the image forming apparatus.
However, Noda teaches wherein the environment information comprises environment information of a sheet feeder provided in the image forming apparatus (Noda: e.g., acquire temperature and humidity of a sheet profile, in which include sheet type, basis weight, sheet color, etc., in order to continue a job, Col 3 (lines 54 – 62) & Col 9 (lines 54 – 62)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the information processing apparatus of Shibata in view of Kimura as taught by Noda since Noda suggested within Col 3 (lines 54 – 62) and Col 9 (lines 54 – 62) that such modification of sheet profile as the sheet feeder would determine if the job can be executed under the effective range of the acquired environment information in order to continue/resume printing operation under accepted environment conditions and using the selected sheet profile.
With respect to claim 13, Shibata in view of Kimura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the hardware processor is configured to determine whether to issue a warning to a user, determine whether an environment of a sheet feeder provided in the image forming apparatus is unsuitable for feeding a sheet, and generate warning information when the environment is unsuitable.
However, Noda teaches wherein the hardware processor is configured to determine whether to issue a warning to a user, determine whether an environment of a sheet feeder provided in the image forming apparatus is unsuitable for feeding a sheet, and generate warning information when the environment is unsuitable (Noda: e.g., when it is determined that effective ranges do not correspond to each other, image control CPU 113 controls LCD 141 to indicate a warning sign and then change/retrieve sheet profile until a current state is established, Col 6 (lines 4 – 17); Col 7 (lines 23 – 48), Fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the information processing apparatus of Shibata in view of Kimura as taught by Noda since Noda suggested within Col 6 (lines 4 – 17) & Col 7 (lines 23 – 48) that such modification of warning the user would inform the user that parameters are not in effective range in order to suggest/recommend the user to change said parameters.
With respect to claim 14, Shibata in view of Kimura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the hardware processor is configured to output a control signal based on the environment information to an environment changer, the environment information comprises environment information of a sheet feeder provided in the image forming apparatus, and the hardware processor is configured to cause the environment changer to perform control in accordance with the environment information of the sheet feeder by outputting a control signal based on the environment information of the sheet feeder to the environment changer.
However, Noda teaches wherein the hardware processor is configured to output a control signal based on the environment information to an environment changer, the environment information comprises environment information of a sheet feeder provided in the image forming apparatus, and the hardware processor is configured to cause the environment changer to perform control in accordance with the environment information of the sheet feeder by outputting a control signal based on the environment information of the sheet feeder to the environment changer (e.g., configured to send a signal based on a change made in the environment information, the environment information contains information required to change setting for the job (already started), the signal is sent once the environment information is changed, Col 4 (lines 26 – 40)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the information processing apparatus of Shibata in view of Kimura as taught by Noda since Noda suggested within Col 4 (lines 26 - 40) that such modification of changing setting for the job would correct/edit the setting for the job in order to continue/resume printing operation under accepted environment conditions.
With respect to claim 15, Shibata in view of Kimura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, but neither of them teaches wherein a screen displayed on the display device based on the display information includes a display icon for displaying the environment information as a pop-up.
However, Noda teaches wherein a screen displayed on the display device based on the display information includes a display icon for displaying the environment information as a pop-up (e.g., based on information indicating that when environment information doesn’t correspond, a pop-up (warning) is displayed including an icon display 146, Col 4 (lines 26 – 40); Col 7 (lines 10 – 39); Col 10 (lines 26 – 31); Figs. 7 & 9; in other words, when temperature/humidity/environment is not within range (or not below a threshold), display an alert to take immediate action before continuing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the information processing apparatus of Shibata in view of Kimura as taught by Noda since Noda suggested within Col 4 (lines 26 – 40); Col 7 (lines 10 – 39); Col 10 (lines 26 – 31); Figs. 7 & 9 that such modification of having a display icon for causing displaying as a pop-up would overrule the system in order to force the user to take immediate/remediation action to continue printing the print job.
With respect to claim 16, Shibata in view of Kimura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the hardware processor is configured to generate display information whose information is narrowed down by the environment information.
However, in the same field of endeavor of collecting/acquiring humidity/temperature, Noda teaches wherein the hardware processor is configured to generate display information whose information is narrowed down by the environment information (Noda: e.g., generate display information wherein certain information is filtered or shaded, Col 6 (line 63) to Col 7 (line 4); Col 10 (lines 15 – 18)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the information processing apparatus of Shibata in view of Kimura as taught by Noda since Noda suggested within Col 6 (line 63) to Col 7 (line 4); Col 10 (lines 15 – 18) that such modification/design of filtering information would reduce the amount of listing items or options in order to sort the amount of listing items or option in a reduced method; thereby convenient for the user to select a sheet profile based on the sort as desired by the user.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata in view of Kimura and further in view of Kawaguchi (U.S Patent No. 11,308,371 B2, hereinafter ‘Kawaguchi’).
With respect to claim 21, Shibata in view of Kimura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, but neither of them teaches wherein the image data generated as the display information to be displayed on the display device comprises image data in which the error information and the environmental information are displayed in association with each other on a common time axis.
However, in the same field of endeavor of acquiring information, generating data and displaying generated data, the claimed limitations are well-known in the art as evidenced by Kawaguchi. In particular, Kawaguchi teaches wherein the image data generated as the display information to be displayed on the display device comprises image data in which the error information and the environmental information are displayed in association with each other on a common time axis (e.g., upon acquiring all information, statistical information is generated to be displayed, said generated statistical information includes temperature, humidity and error(s) in which are displayed as statistical information, Col 15 (line 51) to Col 16 (line 2); Col 16 (lines 34 – 48) with Col 7 (lines 12 – 29 & 60 - 67) and Col 8 (lines 1 – 2), claim 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the information processing apparatus of Shibata in view of Kimura as taught by Kawaguchi since Kawaguchi suggested within Col 15 (line 51) to Col 16 (line 2); Col 16 (lines 34 – 48) with Col 7 (lines 12 – 29 & 60 - 67) and Col 8 (lines 1 – 2) and claim 3 that such modification or design of displaying temperature/humidity and job information (error) would analyze a current temperature/humidity from statistical-information including error information in order to avoid occurrence of the error of a specific type; thereby improving by reducing errors when temperature/humidity is not acceptable (unsuitable).
Conclusion
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 JUAN M GUILLERMETY whose telephone number is (571)270-3481. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Benny Q 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.
/JUAN M GUILLERMETY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights