DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Oath/Declaration
3. The receipt of Oath/Declaration is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/03/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawings filed on 04/03/2024 are accepted by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
6. Claims 1-15 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanada et al. (US 2022/0286573) in view of Kaneko et al. (US 2019/0197124); hereinafter Kanada ‘573 and Kaneko.
Regarding Claim 1:
Kanada ‘573 discloses an image processing apparatus (Kanada ‘573: Fig. 1 ‘personal computer 1’), comprising circuitry configured to:
acquire setting information relating to conveyance processing, image-capturing processing, or image processing of an image reading apparatus and a storage destination of a file that is generated in accordance with the setting information, wherein the setting information and the storage destination are set by a user;
Kanada ‘573 describes a PC folder as the storage destination and that the scanner receives an instruction specifying the folder as the destination; when that instruction is received, the scanner accesses the folder and acquires setting information stored in the folder, then sets the reading condition accordingly. Specifically, Kanada ‘573 discloses wherein user operation generates ‘instruction data CM’ specifying a folder as storage destination; the scanner accesses that folder to acquire reading setting information; and sets reading conditions accordingly. Kanada ‘573 further discloses setting information examples (capture/processing parameters): resolution, color/mono, format, brightness, contrast. (Fig. 3; ¶[0111-0123]).
Kanada ‘573 does not expressly disclose identify characteristic information of an existing file present in the storage destination, determine whether the setting information corresponds to the characteristic information and generate a determination result; and notify the user of information relating to the determination result in a case where the determination result indicates that the setting information does not correspond to the characteristic information.
Kaneko discloses identify characteristic information of an existing file present in the storage destination, determine whether the setting information corresponds to the characteristic information and generate a determination result; and notify the user of information relating to the determination result in a case where the determination result indicates that the setting information does not correspond to the characteristic information.
Kaneko presumes a naming rule based on file names of data files present in a folder and associates that rule with the folder. Kaneko further describes extracting attribute information about a data file (file type, size, colors, creation/update time, etc.) which is a concrete form of the claimed “characteristic information” of existing files. Kaneko teaches wherein a data file is analyzed and the content of the data file is tagged, or attribute information about the data file is generated, and registered in storage as shown in FIG. 4. Attribute information about a data file includes, for example, file type of the data file (text file, JPEG file, etc.), document size, number of colors (black and white/color), date and time of creation of the data file and date and time of updating of the data file, language and text code used in the data file, or data size or the like (¶[0040-0045]).
Kaneko further teaches presuming/deriving a rule based on filenames in a folder, i.e., assessing correspondence between a prospective naming/handling rule and existing folder characteristics for later use. Specifically, Kaneko teaches determining whether a created file name candidate matches the file name of an existing data file in the same folder (Fig. 7 flowchart step S315); S320 if there is a match, and S330 if there is not a match. (¶[0076-0077]). Lastly Kaneko at the right side of Figs. 9A and 9B wherein the user is presented with a plurality of file name candidates in priority order and waits for the user to confirm each file name or amend/correct the name of the file (¶[0068-0069]). This reads on the claimed ‘notifying the user of information relating to the determination result’.
Kanada ‘573 in view of Kaneko are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g., both disclose methods of file management, and in particular, as applied to a scanning device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enhance Kanada ‘573’s folder-based scan workflow (where a user/scanner specifies a storage destination folder and uses folder-stored reading setting information to control capture/processing) by incorporating Kaneko’s technique of deriving/presuming rules and characteristics from the population of existing files in a folder (e.g., file names, tag/attribute information) and to present patterns on a user interface.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to determine whether newly selected settings/destination are consistent with how files in that destination are ordinarily produced and stored, and to improve correctness and user efficiency in scanning and filing of what was scanned. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kanada ‘573 with Kaneko to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2:
The proposed combination of Kanada ‘573 in view of Kaneko further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to identify, as the characteristic information, existing file setting information relating to the conveyance processing, the image-capturing processing, or the image processing used when the existing file was generated.
Kanada ‘573 teaches wherein a folder contains “reading setting information” that is the reading condition used for generated read data stored in that folder and identifies the setting used to generate the stored file/read data (¶[0042-0043]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Kanada ‘573 with Kaneko to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding Claim 4:
The proposed combination of Kanada ‘573 in view of Kaneko further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to identify a medium type corresponding to the existing file as the characteristic information.
Kaneko teaches wherein attribute information includes e.g., size and color, which corresponds to document/media characteristics like A4/B5 and color/monochrome (¶[0040]).
Kanada ‘573 in view of Kaneko are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g., both disclose methods of file management, and in particular, as applied to a scanning device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify a “medium type” corresponding to an existing file by using the file’s attribute information (e.g., size and color) as taught by Kaneko. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is because such attributes are commonly used indicators of document/media type in scanning/filing workflows and provide a straightforward basis for characterizing stored files. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kanada ‘573 with Kaneko to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding Claim 6:
The proposed combination of Kanada ‘573 in view of Kaneko further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to: identify individual characteristic information of each of a plurality of existing files present in the storage destination; and identify the characteristic information based on statistics of the individual characteristic information of each of the plurality of existing files.
Kaneko discloses categorizing data files registered in the same folder based on similarity, where the categorization is performed based on similarity of attribute information (e.g., size, color, text, ruled line, etc.), thereby deriving folder-level characteristic information from a plurality of files (¶[0067-0071]; Fig. 9B).
Kanada ‘573 in view of Kaneko are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor (image processing/file management in scan workflows).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to infer a destinations’s characteristic information based on the collective characteristics of multiple existing files stored in that destination, as taught by Kaneko’s folder-based categorization using attribute similarity. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to reduce filing errors and improve usability and correctness by basing destination inferences on what is typical for that destination. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kanada ‘573 with Kaneko to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7:
The proposed combination of Kanada ‘573 in view of Kaneko further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the circuitry is configured to: generate a plurality of characteristic information candidates based on each statistic of groups of individual characteristic information that are approximate to each other among the individual characteristic information of the plurality of existing files; and identify a characteristic information candidate that is the most approximate to the setting information among the plurality of characteristic information candidates as the characteristic information.
Kaneko teaches a multi-candidate workflow where, when plural rules apply, the system presumes categories and proceeds to presume names/rules, which inherently forms candidate groupings and selection among alternatives. Further, Kaneko includes a rule selecting section and a candidate presenting section, reflecting candidate generation and selection (¶[0068-0071]; Fig. 9B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to group/cluster approximate characteristics from multiple files into candidates and then select the closest candidate to the user’s selected setting information, because Kaneko already teaches forming multiple candidates and ordering them by priority to present the best match for user selection.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to improve accuracy of inferred destination characteristics and reduce user burden by presenting a best-fit recommendation among plausible alternatives, rather than a single rigid assumption. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kanada ‘573 with Kaneko to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regarding Claim 9:
The proposed combination of Kanada ‘573 in view of Kaneko further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to:
further acquire capability information indicating a capability relating to the conveyance processing, the image-capturing processing, or the image processing of the image reading apparatus; and
notify the user of a recommended value for a setting relating to the image-capturing processing or the image processing within a range of the capability indicated in the capability information based on the characteristic information.
Kanada ‘573 expressly indicates the reading condition includes at least one of read resolution, color/monochrome setting, read data storage format, brightness, and contrast, and teaches setting the read condition based on acquired reading setting information (¶[0015]; ¶[0040-0042]). Additionally, Claim 4 of Kanada ‘573 describes the scanner setting a reading condition based on reading setting information. These are capability/processing-related settings whose valid values depend on the scanner’s supported modes.
Lastly Kaneko at the right side of Figs. 9A and 9B wherein the user is presented with a plurality of file name candidates in priority order and waits for the user to confirm each file name or amend/correct the name of the file (¶[0068-0069]). This reads on the claimed ‘notifying the user of a recommended value for a setting relating to the image-capturing processing or the image processing’.
Kanada ‘573 in view of Kaneko are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g., both disclose methods of file management, and in particular, as applied to a scanning device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recommend values for capture/processing settings (e.g., resolution, color mode, format, brightness/contrast) ina manner consistent with the apparatus’s supported reading-condition parameters, as taught by Kanada ‘573’s reading-condition-setting framework. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to improve correctness and avoid invalid/unsupported settings while still improving usability through recommendations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kanada ‘573 with Kaneko to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Regarding Claim 10:
The proposed combination of Kanada ‘573 in view of Kaneko further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to identify the characteristic information based on an existing file present in another storage destination corresponding to the storage destination in a case where the existing file is not present in the storage destination.
Kanada ‘573 expressly teaches the existence of multiple storage destination folders (e.g., a second storage destination folder different from the first), with different reading setting information. This supports the “corresponding to another destination” (¶[0045-0052]; Fig. 1). Kanada further teaches a fallback when no folder-specific reading setting information is stored: the setting unit retrieves unique reading setting information and sets a reading condition based on it (¶[0103]).
Kanada ‘573 in view of Kaneko are combinable because they all relate to selecting destination and applying settings based on stored destination-associated information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fall back to characteristic information/settings from a corresponding alternate folder/destination when the selected destination lacks sufficient existing-file information, given the predictable need to avoid null results and the explicit multi-folder architecture of Kanada ‘573. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to improve robustness and reduce user burden when a destination is empty or lacks usable historical information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kanada ‘573 with Kaneko to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Regarding Claim 14: (drawn to a method)
The proposed rejection of apparatus claim 1, over Kanada ‘573 in view of Kaneko is similarly cited to reject the steps of the method of claim 14 because these steps occur in the operation of the apparatus as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 14.
Regarding Claim 15: (drawn to a computer-readable storage medium)
The proposed rejection of apparatus claim 1, and method claim 14, over Kanada ‘573 in view of Kaneko is similarly cited to reject the computer readable medium of claim 15 because these steps occur in the operation of the apparatus and method as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claims 1 and 14 are equally applicable to claim 15.
It is noted that Kanada ‘573 discloses a computer-readable storage medium at least at ¶[0168].
12. Claims 3, 5, 8, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanada ‘573 in view of Kaneko as applied to claims 1, 2 and 4 above, and further in view of Kanada et al. (US 2019/0197305), hereinafter Kanada ‘305.
Regarding Claim 3:
The proposed combination of Kanada ‘573 in view of Kaneko discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, but does not expressly disclose wherein the circuitry is configured to notify the user that the setting information is not appropriate as the determination result in a case where the determination result indicates that the setting information does not correspond to the existing file setting information.
Kanada ‘305 discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to notify the user that the setting information is not appropriate as the determination result in a case where the determination result indicates that the setting information does not correspond to the existing file setting information.
Kanada ‘305 teaches comparing OCR-extracted strings to existing folder/file naming information, limiting comparison targets to nearby folder levels, ranking candidates by match, and presenting recommended candidates and creating a new folder when no suitable match exists. Specifically, Kanada ‘305 discloses in Fig. 3 a “hierarchical structure of folders” wherein “there is a high possibility that the user saves new data in a folder in which data was save in the past or a folder in the vicinity thereof”; (¶[0042-0045]; ¶[0080-0088]; ¶[0094]; also see Figs. 4-7).
Kanada ‘305 further discloses newly creating and presenting a folder including a character string representing the type of the read document as a candidate for a folder name. Specifically, Kanada ‘305 discloses “when an existing folder in which at least part of the folder name matches the character strings in the data may not be found, since a folder name including a character string representing the type of the read document may be presented as a candidate for the folder name for saving a file and newly created, it is possible to easily set an appropriate folder.” (¶[0080]; ¶[0087-0088] see Fig. 8 ‘recommended filename is generated in step S240 and is shown in the display);
Kanada ‘573, Kaneko and Kanada ‘305 are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g., all disclose methods of file management, and in particular, as applied to a scanning device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect when the user’s selected settings/destination as taught by Kanada ‘573 do not correspond to inferred characteristics of files already stored there as taught by Kaneko, and to notify/recommend alternatives as taught by Kanada ‘305.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to reduce filing errors, improve usability, and to improve correctness and user efficiency in scanning and filing of what was scanned. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kanada ‘573, Kaneko and Kanada ‘305 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding Claim 5:
The proposed combination of Kanada ‘573 in view of Kaneko discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 4, but do not expressly disclose wherein the circuitry is configured to notify the user that the storage destination is not appropriate as the determination result in a case where the determination result indicates that the setting information does not correspond to the medium type.
Kanada ‘305 discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to notify the user that the storage destination is not appropriate as the determination result in a case where the determination result indicates that the setting information does not correspond to the medium type.
Kanada ‘305 describes a folder setting field (save destination) and, upon user action, displays a folder candidate field “in the vicinity” that includes a detected save destination candidate folder and permits the user select it (Fig. 4; ¶[0052-0053]).
Kanada ‘305 further teaches preferentially displaying (ranking) a folder candidate and expressly states the system may present a suitable folder as a save destination so the user can more easily set it (Fig. 6; ¶[0072-0074).
Kanada ‘573, Kaneko and Kanada ‘305 are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor (image processing/file management in scan workflows). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect when the user’s selected settings/destination do not correspond to the inferred characteristics/medium-type indicators of files already stored in the destination and to notify/recommend an alternative destination. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to reduce filing errors and improve usability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kanada ‘573, Kaneko and Kanada ‘305 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding Claim 8:
The proposed combination of Kanada ‘573 in view of Kaneko discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the circuitry is configured to further notify the user of a recommended value for an item of which a predetermined value is set or an item of which a value is not set in the setting information based on the characteristic information.
Kanada ‘305 discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to further notify the user of a recommended value for an item of which a predetermined value is set or an item of which a value is not set in the setting information based on the characteristic information.
Kanada ‘305 explicitly presents a “Recommended candidate” list on its file-save UI (Fig. 8), i.e., recommending a value for an item of the setting information (such as save destination/save parameters) based on inferred characteristics (¶[0080-0086]). Kanada ‘305 also explains that selecting an appropriate save folder is burdensome when many folders exist, supporting the reason for providing recommended candidates to the user (¶[0003]).
Kanada ‘573, Kaneko and Kanada ‘305 are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor (image processing/file management in scan workflows). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide recommended values for items in the setting information (including items that are unset) using inferred characteristics of existing stored content, since Kanada ‘305 already teaches presenting recommended candidates to guide the user (Fig. 8; ¶[0003]). The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to reduce user burden and filing errors by guiding the user to appropriate selection with minimal manual editing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kanada ‘573, Kaneko and Kanada ‘305 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding Claim 11:
The proposed combination of Kanada ‘573 in view of Kaneko discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the circuitry is configured to: further identify the characteristic information relating to a second storage destination different from the storage destination; and notify the user of information relating to the second storage destination when a matching degree between the setting information and the characteristic information relating to the second storage destination is higher than a matching degree between the setting information and the characteristic information relating to the storage destination.
Kanada ‘305 discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to: further identify the characteristic information relating to a second storage destination different from the storage destination; and notify the user of information relating to the second storage destination when a matching degree between the setting information and the characteristic information relating to the second storage destination is higher than a matching degree between the setting information and the characteristic information relating to the storage destination.
Kanada ‘305 teaches comparing against folder names in a constrained neighborhood (same level as a prior folder, optionally one level up/down) and presenting an appropriate folder to the user by limiting the comparison range, which is effectively “suggesting another destination” based on a better match (¶¶[0044-0045]).
Kanada ‘573, Kaneko and Kanada ‘305 are combinable because they all focus on selecting appropriate save destinations and settings for scanned output and presenting the best choice to the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to notify the user of a better matching alternate storage destination when the selected destination is a poorer match, since Kanada ‘305 already teaches evaluating candidates in the vicinity and presenting the most appropriate folder to reduce user burden. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to reduce filing errors and improve usability by guiding users to the best destination among plausible alternatives. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kanada ‘573, Kaneko and Kanada ‘305 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12:
The proposed combination of Kanada ‘573 in view of Kaneko discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the circuitry is configured to:
further identify the characteristic information relating to each of all other storage destinations located in a vicinity of the storage destination; and suggest creating a new storage destination in a case where the setting information does not correspond to any of the characteristic information relating to the storage destination and the characteristic information relating to all the other storage destinations.
Kanada ‘305 discloses further identify the characteristic information relating to each of all other storage destinations located in a vicinity of the storage destination; and suggest creating a new storage destination in a case where the setting information does not correspond to any of the characteristic information relating to the storage destination and the characteristic information relating to all the other storage destinations.
Kanada ‘305 teaches limiting candidate folder comparison to a neighborhood (same level as a prior folder, and optionally one level up/down); (¶¶[0044-0045]). Kaneko explicitly teaches a “CREATE FOLDER” in its process flow (Fig. 7, Step S270).
Kanada ‘573, Kaneko, and Kanada ‘305 are combinable because they are in the same field of endeavor, and creating a new folder/destination is a predictable UI/workflow response when no suitable destination candidate exists.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to (i) search nearby destinations and, if none match sufficiently, (ii) suggest/enable creation of a new destination folder, as a predictable combination of Kanada ‘305’s “vicinity” candidate search and Kaneko’s create-folder workflow. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to improve usability and correctness by preventing misfiling into a poor match and by enabling an immediately appropriate destination when needed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kanada ‘573, Kaneko and Kanada ‘305 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claim 13 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.
14. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 13:
None of the prior art searched and made of record neither anticipates nor suggests in the claimed combinations the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the image reading apparatus includes software installed therein; and the circuitry is configured to: set the setting information in a second image reading apparatus to the image reading apparatus, wherein the second image reading apparatus is different from the image reading apparatus, and the setting information in the second image reading apparatus is set by the user; and in a case that the setting information set in the second image reading apparatus does not correspond to the characteristic information, further acquire capability information indicating a capability relating to the image-capturing processing or the image processing of other image reading apparatuses or other software different from the software, and notify the user of information relating to an image reading apparatus or software having the capability corresponding to the characteristic information among the other image reading apparatuses or the other software.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hosomizo (US 2023/0239417) discloses a method implementable on a processor of an information processing device that executes a support program supporting a general-purpose printing program incorporated in advance in an operating system of the information processing device. The support program is compatible with a printer connected with the information processing device. The method includes obtaining main body information stored in the printer. The printer has one or more feed trays and storing the main body information indicating sheet characteristics for each of the one or more feed trays. The method further includes obtaining, in response to a request from the general-purpose printing program after print settings are changed via a print setting screen displayed on a display of the information processing device, the changed print settings from the general-purpose printing program. The general-purpose printing program is configured to handle data for displaying the print setting screen on the display. The print setting screen is configured to accept, as the print settings, specified values set for a plurality of settable items including items of sheet characteristics and an item of feed tray. The method further includes generating notification data based on the obtained main body information. The notification data includes sheet information indicating the sheet characteristics for a specified feed tray set in the obtained print settings. The method further includes providing the generated notification data to the general-purpose printing program, thereby enabling the notification data to be displayed on the print setting screen.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL R MCLEAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 6AM - 4PM, PST.
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, Akwasi M Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/NEIL R MCLEAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681