DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 and 19 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim(s) 11-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. in view of Klement et al.
The applicant states that “amended Claim 11 recites similar limitations to amended Claim 1 and is patentable over the cited art for similar reasons” on page 11. Though similar, claim 11 recites a different limitation to that of claim 1.
Furthermore, the applicant states that “Tanaka fails to disclose a controller configured to compare a spin up time with a ‘first threshold time being predefined as a first period of time that is greater than a period of time required for the rotation speed of the polygon mirror motor to reach the target rotation speed range during normal operation’ and a ‘second threshold time being predefined as a second period of time greater than the first period of time,’ as recited in amended Claim 1” on page 10. This argument is moot since claim 11 does not contain this limitation.
Furthermore, the applicant states that “Tanaka fails to disclose a controller configured to ‘provide a notification in response to a determination that the spin up time is between the first threshold time and the second threshold time,’ on page 11. As described below in the rejections, Tanaka teaches the lifetime detection unit makes a notification of at least one of lifetime or replacement of the deflection unit 113 or the optical scanning unit 11 ([0045]; FIG. 6), the notification of lifetime occurring when the activation time has not exceeded the predetermined threshold.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed on 01/26/2026 regarding claims 1-20 is fully considered. Of the above claims, claims 1, 7-8, 10-11, 16-17 and 19 have been amended, and claim 20 has been newly added.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 16 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 7, the amendment to the following recitation is suggested: (b) a number of the spin up times included in the history data that have been between the first threshold time and the second threshold time is more than a predetermined number of times.
Regarding claim 16, the recitation of “the spin up times” in line 6 lacks antecedent basis.
Further regarding claim 16, the amendment to the following recitation is suggested: (b) a number of the spin up times included in the history data that have been between the first threshold time and the second threshold time is more than a predetermined number of times.
Regarding claim 20, the recitation of “the first measurement occurrence” in line 2 lacks antecedent basis, and the recitation of “a spin up time” in lined 2 refers to a previously recited limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the recitations “the first threshold time being predefined as a first period of time” in lines 11-12 and “the second threshold time being predefined as a second period of time” in lines 13-14 are not reasonably described in the specification. The specification describes the second period of time being the first threshold time and the third period of time being the second threshold time ([0067]). The first period of time is taken until a rotation speed of the polygon mirror motor reaches a target rotation speed range ([0018]).
Claims 2-10 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the recitations “the first threshold time being predefined as a first period of time” in lines 8-9 and “the second threshold time being predefined as a second period of time” in lines 10-11 are not reasonably described in the specification. The specification describes the second period of time being the first threshold time and the third period of time being the second threshold time ([0067]). The first period of time is taken until a rotation speed of the polygon mirror motor reaches a target rotation speed range ([0018]).
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto (US 2006/0098216 A1) in view of Shoji et al. (US 2016/0349659 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sugimoto teaches an image forming apparatus (laser printer 1; FIGs. 1-2) comprising:
a photoconductor (photosensitive drum 27; FIG. 2);
a light source configured to emit a laser beam (a laser beam emission portion; [0031]);
a polygon mirror configured to deflect the laser beam toward the photoconductor to form an image (polygon mirror 19; [0031]; FIG. 2);
a polygon mirror motor configured to rotate the polygon mirror (scanner motor 25; FIG. 2); and
a controller (the motor drive device is configured including an ASIC 200; [0053]; FIGs. 3-8) configured to:
acquire a measurement of a spin up time taken for a rotation speed of the polygon mirror motor to reach a target rotation speed range (second reference speed Sp2, third reference speed Sp3, target rotational speed Spd; FIG. 8);
compare the spin up time with a first threshold time and a second threshold time, the first threshold time being predefined as a first period of time that is greater than a period of time required for the rotation speed of the polygon mirror motor to reach the target rotation speed range during normal operation (first speed detection signal P1 is within first term T1 plus second term T2; FIG. 8), and the second threshold time being predefined as a second period of time greater than the first period of time and indicating that the polygon mirror motor is broken (where the second speed detection signal P2 is not detected within the third term T3, the fault of the scanner motor 25 is decided; [0078]; FIG. 8); and
determine that the spin up time is between the first threshold time and the second threshold time (the case in which the spin up time is greater than T1+T2 and less than time at P1 + T3; FIG. 8).
Further regarding claim 1, Sugimoto does not teach the controller configured to store history data regarding the spin up time and provide a notification in response to the determination that the spin up time is between the first threshold time and the second threshold time.
Further regarding claim 1, Shoji et al. teach a controller configured to store history data regarding a spin up time (the electronic mail may include measurement history information that indicates the first transition time and measured values of the second transition time measured at each second timing; [0053]; in step S13, the control portion 5 stores, in a storage portion such as the EEPROM, the temperature of the bearing portion 333D detected in step S11 and the transition time measured in step S12; [0061]; FIG. 5) and provide a notification in response to a determination that the spin up time is within normal operation (the display portion is, for example, a liquid crystal display and displays various types of information based on control instructions from the control portion 5; [0021]; FIG. 2; notification that the rotation speed of the motor 333 has reached the predetermined speed is sent from the motor driving portion 335; [0043], [0059], [0087]-[0088], [0094]) for the purpose of tracking the performance of the motor and notifying when a predetermined speed has been reached.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the controller configured to store history data regarding the spin up time and provide a notification in response to the determination that the spin up time is between the first threshold time and the second threshold time, as taught by Shoji et al., into Sugimoto for the purpose of tracking the performance of the motor and notifying when a predetermined speed has been reached.
Regarding claim 2, Sugimoto does not teach wherein the history data includes a number of occurrences of the spin up time being between the first threshold time and the second threshold time.
Further regarding claim 2, Shoji et al. teach the history data includes a number of occurrences of the spin up time being between the first threshold time and the second threshold time (the electronic mail may include measurement history information that indicates the first transition time and measured values of the second transition time measured at each second timing; [0053]; in step S13, the control portion 5 stores, in a storage portion such as the EEPROM, the temperature of the bearing portion 333D detected in step S11 and the transition time measured in step S12; [0061]; FIG. 5; the number of transition times the predetermined speed has been reached stored in the storage portion) for the purpose of tracking the performance of the motor based on the number of occurrences the predetermined speed has been reached.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein the history data includes a number of occurrences of the spin up time being between the first threshold time and the second threshold time, as taught by Shoji et al., into Sugimoto for the purpose of tracking the performance of the motor based on the number of occurrences the predetermined speed has been reached.
Regarding claim 3, Sugimoto does not teach wherein the history data includes a maximum value of the spin up time ever measured for the polygon mirror motor.
Further regarding claim 3, Shoji et al. teach the history data includes a maximum value of the spin up time ever measured for the polygon mirror motor (the electronic mail may include measurement history information that indicates the first transition time and measured values of the second transition time measured at each second timing; [0053]; in step S13, the control portion 5 stores, in a storage portion such as the EEPROM, the temperature of the bearing portion 333D detected in step S11 and the transition time measured in step S12; [0061]; FIG. 5; the maximum transition time the predetermined speed has been reached stored in the storage portion) for the purpose of tracking the performance of the motor based on the maximum transition time the predetermined speed has been reached.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein the history data includes a maximum value of the spin up time ever measured for the polygon mirror motor, as taught by Shoji et al., into Sugimoto for the purpose of tracking the performance of the motor based on the maximum transition time the predetermined speed has been reached.
Regarding claim 4, Sugimoto does not teach wherein the spin up time is a first spin up time of a plurality of spin up times included in the history data, each spin up time corresponding to a different measurement occurrence.
Further regarding claim 4, Shoji et al. teach the spin up time is a first spin up time of a plurality of spin up times included in the history data, each spin up time corresponding to a different measurement occurrence (the electronic mail may include measurement history information that indicates the first transition time and measured values of the second transition time measured at each second timing; [0053]; in step S13, the control portion 5 stores, in a storage portion such as the EEPROM, the temperature of the bearing portion 333D detected in step S11 and the transition time measured in step S12; [0061]; FIG. 5; the first transition time the predetermined speed has been reached of a plurality of transition times stored in the storage portion; each transition time being measured at a different time) for the purpose of tracking the performance of the motor based on the first transition time the predetermined speed has been reached.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein the spin up time is a first spin up time of a plurality of spin up times included in the history data, each spin up time corresponding to a different measurement occurrence, as taught by Shoji et al., into Sugimoto for the purpose of tracking the performance of the motor based on the first transition time the predetermined speed has been reached.
Regarding claim 5, Sugimoto does not teach wherein the controller is configured to store up to a predetermined number of spin up times.
Further regarding claim 5, Shoji et al. teach the controller is configured to store up to a predetermined number of spin up times (the electronic mail may include measurement history information that indicates the first transition time and measured values of the second transition time measured at each second timing; [0053]; in step S13, the control portion 5 stores, in a storage portion such as the EEPROM, the temperature of the bearing portion 333D detected in step S11 and the transition time measured in step S12; [0061]; FIG. 5; the size of the storage portion determines the predetermined number of transition times stored in the storage portion) for the purpose of tracking the performance of the motor based on a predetermined number of transition times the predetermined speed has been reached.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein the controller is configured to store up to a predetermined number of spin up times, as taught by Shoji et al., into Sugimoto for the purpose of tracking the performance of the motor based on a predetermined number of transition times the predetermined speed has been reached.
Regarding claim 6, Sugimoto does not teach wherein the controller is configured to modify the history data to remove the spin up time corresponding to the oldest measurement occurrence in response to a determination that a new spin up time is measured and the history data already includes the predetermined number of spin up times.
Further regarding claim 6, Shoji et al. teach the controller is configured to modify the history data to remove the spin up time corresponding to a measurement occurrence in response to a determination that a new spin up time is measured and the history data already includes the predetermined number of spin up times (the electronic mail may include measurement history information that indicates the first transition time and measured values of the second transition time measured at each second timing; [0053]; in step S13, the control portion 5 stores, in a storage portion such as the EEPROM, the temperature of the bearing portion 333D detected in step S11 and the transition time measured in step S12; [0061]; FIG. 5; the size of the storage portion determines the predetermined number of transition times stored in the storage portion; when the size of the storage portion has been reached, some history data would have to be removed in order to store new data) for the purpose of tracking the performance of the motor based on the newest transition times the predetermined speed has been reached. One of ordinary skill in the art would have removed the oldest data to make room for newer and updated data.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein the controller is configured to modify the history data to remove the spin up time corresponding to the oldest measurement occurrence in response to a determination that a new spin up time is measured and the history data already includes the predetermined number of spin up times, as taught by Shoji et al., into Sugimoto for the purpose of tracking the performance of the motor based on the newest transition times the predetermined speed has been reached.
Regarding claim 8, Sugimoto does not teach wherein the controller is configured to provide the notification in response to the first measurement occurrence of a spin up time being between the first threshold time and the second threshold time.
Further regarding claim 8, Shoji et al. teach the controller is configured to provide the notification in response to the first measurement occurrence of a spin up time being between the first threshold time and the second threshold time (the display portion is, for example, a liquid crystal display and displays various types of information based on control instructions from the control portion 5; [0021]; FIG. 2; notification that the rotation speed of the motor 333 has reached the predetermined speed is sent from the motor driving portion 335; [0043], [0059], [0087]-[0088], [0094]) for the purpose of tracking the performance of the motor and notifying when a predetermined speed has been reached.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein the controller is configured to provide the notification in response to the first measurement occurrence of a spin up time being between the first threshold time and the second threshold time, as taught by Shoji et al., into Sugimoto for the purpose of tracking the performance of the motor and notifying when a predetermined speed has been reached.
Regarding claim 9, Sugimoto does not teach a communication interface configured to transmit the history data to a server through a network.
Further regarding claim 9, Shoji et al. teach a communication interface configured to transmit the history data to a server through a network (the communication portion 7 is a communication interface that can perform a wired or wireless data communication with an external communication apparatus; [0022]; FIG. 2) for the purpose of transmitting data to an external device.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a communication interface configured to transmit the history data to a server through a network, as taught by Shoji et al., into Sugimoto for the purpose of transmitting data to an external device.
Regarding claim 10, Sugimoto teaches wherein the controller is configured to provide a second notification in response to a determination that the spin up time exceeds the second threshold time (where the second speed detection signal P2 is not detected within the third term T3, the fault of the scanner motor 25 is decided; the display of error information or the stop of the scanner motor 25 is executed; [0078]; FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 19, Sugimoto teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium including stored thereon that, when processed by at least one processor, cause a device to perform operations (storage means, such as a ROM 260 and a RAM 262, are externally connected to the ASIC 200; incidentally, various programs which are run in the printer 1 are stored in the ROM 260; [0053]; FIG. 3) comprising:
receiving a measurement of a spin up time required for a rotation speed of a polygon mirror motor to reach a target rotation speed range (scanner motor 25; FIG. 2; second reference speed Sp2, third reference speed Sp3, target rotational speed Spd; FIG. 8);
comparing the spin up time with a first threshold time and a second threshold time, the first threshold time being predefined as a first period of time that is greater than a period of time required for the rotation speed of the polygon mirror motor to reach the target rotation speed range during normal operation (first speed detection signal P1 is within first term T1 plus second term T2; FIG. 8), and the second threshold time being predefined as a second period of time greater than the first period of time and indicating that the polygon mirror motor is broken (where the second speed detection signal P2 is not detected within the third term T3, the fault of the scanner motor 25 is decided; [0078]; FIG. 8); and
determine that the spin up time is between the first threshold time and the second threshold time (the case in which the spin up time is greater than T1+T2 and less than time at P1 + T3; FIG. 8).
Further regarding claim 19, Sugimoto does not teach storing, in a storage device, history data regarding the spin up time in response to the determination that the spin up time is between the first threshold time and the second threshold time.
Further regarding claim 19, Shoji et al. teach storing, in a storage device, history data regarding a spin up time in response to a determination that the spin up time is a within normal operation (the electronic mail may include measurement history information that indicates the first transition time and measured values of the second transition time measured at each second timing; [0053]; in step S13, the control portion 5 stores, in a storage portion such as the EEPROM, the temperature of the bearing portion 333D detected in step S11 and the transition time measured in step S12; [0061]; FIG. 5; notification that the rotation speed of the motor 333 has reached the predetermined speed is sent from the motor driving portion 335; [0043], [0059], [0087]-[0088], [0094]) for the purpose of tracking the performance of the motor when a predetermined speed has been reached.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the controller configured to store history data regarding the spin up time and provide a notification in response to the determination that the spin up time is between the first threshold time and the second threshold time, as taught by Shoji et al., into Sugimoto for the purpose of tracking the performance of the motor when a predetermined speed has been reached.
Claim(s) 11-15, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2022/0276599 A1) in view of Klement et al. (US 6,459443 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka et al. teach a method (method of operating the image forming apparatus 1; FIG. 1) comprising:
receiving a measurement of a spin up time required for a rotation speed of a polygon mirror motor to reach a target rotation speed range (the activation time used in the present detection system is time since the deflection unit 113 starts to be activated until the speed of the defection unit 113 reaches rated rotation speed or a predetermined ratio with respect to the rated rotation speed; [0035]; the activation time acquisition unit 202 acquires the activation time using the deflection unit drive signal and a BD signal; [0042]; Figs 3 and 6), the polygon mirror motor being configured to rotate a polygon mirror of an image forming apparatus (with the rotation of the rotating mirror 1131 having four reflection surfaces, the laser beam L is deflected; [0028]; FIG. 1; motor 300; [0031]-[0034]; FIG. 2); and
determining whether the spin up time is between a first threshold time and a second threshold time, the first threshold time being predefined based on a period of time required for the rotation speed of the polygon mirror motor to reach the target rotation speed range during normal operation (the activation time change rates of samples 2 and 3 remain within the threshold; [0036]; FIG. 4), and the second threshold time being predefined as a period of time indicating that the polygon mirror motor is broken (it is a timing to replace the deflection unit 113 when a change in the activation time exceeds a predetermined threshold; [0036]; FIG. 4); and
generating data regarding the spin up time and providing a notification in response to a determination that the spin up time is between the first threshold time and the second threshold time (FIGs. 4-5; the lifetime detection unit makes a notification of at least one of lifetime or replacement of the deflection unit 113 or the optical scanning unit 11; [0045]; FIG. 6; notification of lifetime occurs when the activation time has not exceeded the predetermined threshold).
Further regarding claim 11, Tanaka et al. do not teach storing, in a storage device, history data regarding the spin up time.
Further regarding claim 11, Klement et al. teach storing, in a storage device, history data regarding a spin up time (printer 10 identifies some of these initial conditions prior to printing and stores a recent history of the mirror motor ramp-up time as a function of the initial conditions; column 3, lines 14-33; FIG. 3) for the purpose of minimizing time to first page.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate storing, in a storage device, history data regarding the spin up time, as taught by Klement et al., into Tanaka et al. for the purpose of minimizing time to first page.
Regarding claim 12, Tanaka et al. teach wherein the history data includes a number of occurrences of the spin up time being between the first threshold time and the second threshold time (Figs 4-5).
Regarding claim 13, Tanaka et al. teach wherein the history data includes a maximum value of the spin up time ever measured for the polygon mirror motor (the first actual measured value; FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 14, Tanaka et al. teach wherein the spin up time is a first spin up time of a plurality of spin up times included in the history data, each spin up time corresponding to a different measurement occurrence (Figs 4-5).
Regarding claim 15, Tanaka et al. do not teach modifying the history data to remove the spin up time corresponding to the oldest measurement occurrence in response to a determination that a new spin up time is measured and the history data already includes the predetermined number of spin up times.
Further regarding claim 15, Klement et al. teach modifying the history data to remove the spin up time corresponding to the oldest measurement occurrence in response to a determination that a new spin up time is measured and the history data already includes the predetermined number of spin up times (this new value is stored in NVRAM 80 and is used to calculate the total time to reach true lock for the next activation of printhead 12; column 4, lines 60-67; the new value is used to update an old value for a certain temperature) for the purpose of minimizing time to first page.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate modifying the history data to remove the spin up time corresponding to the oldest measurement occurrence in response to a determination that a new spin up time is measured and the history data already includes the predetermined number of spin up times, as taught by Klement et al., into Tanaka et al. for the purpose of minimizing time to first page.
Regarding claim 17, Tanaka et al. teach wherein the notification is a first notification and the spin up time is a first spin up time (FIGs. 4-5; the lifetime detection unit makes a notification of at least one of lifetime or replacement of the deflection unit 113 or the optical scanning unit 11; [0045]; FIG. 6; notification after the first cycle), further comprising:
receiving a measurement of a second spin up time (activation time after a second cycle; FIGs. 4-6); and
providing a second notification in response to a determination that the spin up time exceeds the second threshold time (SAMPLE 1 exceeds -10% threshold in the negative direction; FIG. 4; lifetime notification unit 204 to replace; FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 18, Tanaka et al. teach controlling the polygon mirror motor to rotate the polygon mirror within the target rotation speed range (engine controller 200; FIG. 6); and
controlling a light source to emit a laser beam toward the polygon mirror (semiconductor laser unit 111; FIG. 1; with the rotation of the rotating mirror 1131 having four reflection surfaces, the laser beam L is deflected; [0028]; FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Tanaka et al. teach wherein the notification is provided in response to the first measurement occurrence of a spin up time being between the first threshold time and the second threshold time (FIGs. 4-5; the lifetime detection unit makes a notification of at least one of lifetime or replacement of the deflection unit 113 or the optical scanning unit 11; [0045]; FIG. 6; notification after the first cycle).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter of claim(s) 16 is the inclusion of wherein the notification is provided in response to a determination that both (a) the spin up time is between the first threshold time and the second threshold time and (b) a number of the spin up times included in the history data that have been between the first threshold time and the second threshold time is more than a predetermined number of times. These limitations, as they are claimed in the combination, have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, making claim(s) 16 allowable over the prior art.
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 KENDRICK X LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-3798. The examiner can normally be reached MWFSa 10am-8pm.
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, Douglas X Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 431-0716. 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.
10 March 2026
/KENDRICK X LIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/DOUGLAS X RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853