DETAILED ACTION
I. Introduction
This Office action addresses U.S. reissue application number 18/735,542 (“542 reissue application” or “instant application”), having a filing date of 6 June 2024. Because the instant application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the statutory provisions of the America Invents Act (“AIA ”) will govern this proceeding.
The instant application is a reissue of U.S. Patent 11,355,106 (“’106 patent”) titled “INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, METHOD OF PROCESSING INFORMATION AND STORAGE MEDIUM COMPRISING DOT PER INCH RESOLUTION FOR SCAN OR COPY”, which issued to Yutaka Nakamura on 7 June 2022 with claims 1-11 (“issued claims”). The application resulting in the ‘106 patent was filed on 13 March 2019 and assigned U.S. patent application number 16/351,629 (“’629 application”).
II. Other Proceedings
After review of Applicant’s statements as set forth in the instant application, and the examiner's independent review of the ‘106 patent itself and its prosecution history, the examiner has failed to locate any current ongoing litigation. The examiner has likewise failed to locate any previous reexaminations (ex parte or inter partes), supplemental examinations, or other post issuance proceedings.
III. Priority
The ‘629 application claims priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) to Japanese application JP2018-069819, filed 30 March 2018, and JP2018-248441, filed 28 December 2018.
As a reissue application, the instant application is entitled to the priority date of the ‘106 patent, the patent being reissued. Thus, the instant reissue application has a presumed priority date of at least 28 December 2018, and as early as 30 March 2018, the filing date of the Japanese priority documents.
The Office acknowledges the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d), but notes that the priority claim has not been perfected through the filing of certified English language translations of the Japanese priority documents, which would establish enablement and written description support for the claims, as well as establishing the precise priority date for any given feature/limitation/claim. See MPEP § 2136(a)(II).
The priority date will be determined on a claim-by-claim basis, as necessary.
Because the effective filing date of the instant application is after March 16, 2013, the pre-AIA ‘First to Invent’ provisions do not apply. Instead, the AIA First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) provisions will apply.
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 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.
IV. Claim Construction
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP § 2111 et seq.
Upon review of the original specification and prosecution history, the examiner has found no instances of lexicographic definitions, either express or implied, that are inconsistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the respective terms. Therefore, for the purposes of claim interpretation, the examiner concludes that there are no claim terms for which applicant is acting as their own lexicographer. See MPEP § 2111.01(IV).
Additionally, upon review of the pending claims, the examiner finds no instances where the claim terms explicitly include functional language which invokes the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
V. Information Disclosure Statements
Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs), filed 6 June 2024, 28 April 2025, and 23 October 2025, have been received and entered into the record. To the extent that the Information Disclosure Statements comply with the provisions of MPEP § 609, the references cited therein have been considered by the examiner.
It is noted that two Non-Patent Literature items (Japanese Office actions) were not considered, because no English-language translations were provided.
See attached forms 1449.
VI. Preliminary Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed 6 June 2024, has been received and entered into the record. New claims 12-21 have been added. Claims 1-21 are now pending in the application.
VII. Application Data Sheet
The Application Data Sheet (ADS) is defective because it identifies the inventor as the applicant. This fails to comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.172, which requires that for reissues of patents which issued from an application filed on or after 16 September 2012, if the patent has been assigned, the assignee must be the applicant. See also Sections 5(g) and 5(h) of the “Reissue Application Filing Guide for Applications filed on or after September 16, 2012,” which can be found at www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/forms/uspto_reissue_ads_guide_Sept2014.pdf.
A corrected ADS is required in response to this Office action.
VIII. Reissue Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective because it fails to identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application.
Specifically, for a broadening reissue, the reissue declaration must include an error statement that identifies the original claim being broadened and a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in the original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid.
However, Applicant’s reissue declaration fails to identify a claim being broadened, and fails to identify a word, phrase, or expression in that claim that renders the original patent inoperative or invalid.
See 37 CFR § 1.175 and MPEP § 1414.
IX. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 251
Claims 1-21 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR § 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
X. Recapture under 35 U.S.C. § 251
In In re Clement, 131 F.3d at 1468-70, 45 USPQ2d at 1164-65, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit set forth a three-step test for recapture analysis. In North American Container, 415 F.3d at 1349, 75 USPQ2d at 1556, the court restated this test as follows:
We apply the recapture rule as a three-step process:
(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.
Step 1
With respect to step 1 (see MPEP § 1412.02(I)(A)), applicants seek to broaden the reissue claims by at least deleting/omitting the following limitations which are present in issued independent claim 1 of the ‘106 patent, but not in new reissue claim 12 (paraphrased):
receive specific text instruction information that includes a job type and a job setting value
convert the received specific text instruction information into specific operation execution information based on the job type and the job setting value
wherein the circuitry provides verbal feedback comprising dot per inch resolution for scan or copy
Step 2
With respect to step 2 (see MPEP § 1412.02(I)(B)), there were several instances where applicants surrendered subject matter during prosecution of the original application (which became the patent to be reissued). Note that the "original application" includes the patent family’s entire prosecution history. MBO Laboratories, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 602 F.3d 1306, 94 USPQ2d 1598 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
During prosecution of the ‘629 application, applicant filed a response to a first non-final rejection on 5 October 2020. Therein, applicant amended independent claims 1, 8, and 9 to include the following limitations, and argued that the new limitations distinguished over the prior art of record (see pages 6-7):
obtain specific text instruction information that includes a job type and a job setting value
convert the specific text instruction information into specific operation execution information based on the job type and the job setting value included in the specific text instruction information
After a final rejection, applicant filed a response on 1 March 2021. Therein, applicant amended independent claims 1, 8, and 9 to include the following limitations, and argued that the new limitations distinguished over the prior art of record (see pages 8-11):
transmit audio data to at least one remote server
receive specific text instruction information from the at least one remote server
After an RCE and a non-final rejection, applicant filed a response on 23 August 2021, reiterating their argument that the prior art failed to disclose the claimed receipt of specific text instruction information from the at least one remote server (see pages 8-12).
After a final rejection, applicant filed a response on 12 January 2022. Therein, applicant added new dependent claim 12, with the limitation that the circuitry provides verbal feedback comprising dot per inch resolution for scan or copy, and reiterated their argument that the prior art failed to disclose the claimed receipt of specific text instruction information from the at least one remote server (see pages 7-11).
A Notice of Allowance was mailed on 9 February 2022. Therein, the following limitation from claim 12 was incorporated into independent claims 1, 8, and 9:
wherein the circuitry provides verbal feedback comprising dot per inch resolution for scan or copy
As noted in MPEP § 1412.02, “If an original patent claim limitation now being omitted or broadened in the present reissue application was originally relied upon by applicant in the original application to make the claims allowable over the art, the omitted limitation relates to subject matter previously surrendered by applicant. The reliance by applicant to define the original patent claims over the art can be by presentation of new/amended claims to define over the art, or an argument/statement by applicant that a limitation of the claim(s) defines over the art.”
With respect to whether applicant surrendered any subject matter, it is to be noted that a patent owner (reissue applicant) is bound by the argument that applicant relied upon to overcome, for example, an art rejection in the original application for the patent to be reissued, regardless of whether the Office adopted the argument in allowing the claims. Greenliant Systems, Inc. v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 1271, 103 USPQ2d 1951, 1958 (Fed. Cir. 2012). As pointed out by the court, "[i]t does not matter whether the examiner or the Board adopted a certain argument for allowance; the sole question is whether the argument was made." Id.
Given the above-cited surrendered subject matter, and in consideration of the subject matter omitted in new independent claim 12 (cited above in step 1 of the analysis), the Office concludes that the following broader aspects of reissue claim 12 is related to the subject matter surrendered during original prosecution of the ‘629 application:
receive specific text instruction information that includes a job type and a job setting value
convert the received specific text instruction information into specific operation execution information based on the job type and the job setting value included in the specific text instruction information
wherein the circuitry provides verbal feedback comprising dot per inch resolution for scan or copy
The “job type” and “job setting value” limitations have been broadened to “type of information processing capability” and “setting value” in new reissue claim 12.
The “verbal feedback” limitation has been entirely eliminated from new reissue claim 12.
Step 3
With respect to step 3 (see MPEP § 1412.02(I)(C)), the Office has reviewed and analyzed new independent claim 12, and concluded that there has been no material narrowing of the reissue claims in such a way that recapture has been avoided.
The claim has been narrowed through the incorporation of a microphone, and the fact that the specific text instruction information includes a type of information processing capability of the remote target apparatus and a setting value indicating specific information processing to be instructed to the target apparatus based on a recognition result of the acquired audio information. However, in order to avoid recapture, the narrowing features must be materially narrowing, in a way that relates to the surrendered subject matter.
With respect to the broadened “type of information processing capability” and “setting value” limitations, these new limitations are well-known in the art. Specifically, as discussed in the rejections of record below, U.S. Patent 10,686,951 to Jacek Joseph Matysiak et al. discloses the use of specific operation execution information including “type of information processing capability” and “setting value” (see disclosure that MFPs offer the ability to print, scan, fax [i.e., “types of information processing capabilities”], and otherwise process documents in a wide variety of formats and in a number of different ways, including printing or scanning with various levels of resolution, etc., and that control of the functions of MFPs were typically performed manually through a control panel, but navigating menus can be daunting and time consuming, and thus there is a need for improved methods and systems for accessing and controlling the functions of an MFP, col. 1, lines 19-46; see also disclosure that when a desired function has been identified, and after a user has provided identity information, preference information can be accessed to identify personalized settings, functions, or options [e.g., dot per inch resolution] for using the MFP [i.e., “setting values”], and an indication of these personalized settings, functions, or options can be provided to the user at the mobile device, where the user can either confirm the settings, functions, or options, or may request one or more different settings, functions, or options, col. 13, lines 44-67, and col. 15, lines 34-59).
Therefore, in view of the surrendered subject matter that has been broadened in the reissue claims, claim 12 is subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 251.
Dependent claims 13-20 are likewise rejected, as they fail to restore all of the surrendered subject matter to the claims.
The Office notes that new independent claim 21, embodying a server, seems to be directed to overlooked aspects, a separate invention/embodiment/species that was disclosed but never covered by the claims of the original application prosecution, and so is not subject to recapture.
Claims 12-20 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as being an impermissible recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The reissue application contains claim(s) that are broader than the issued patent claims. The record of the application for the patent shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
XI. Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions in required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-20, drawn to an information processing system and method using voice commands, classified in G06F 3/167.
II. Claim 21, drawn to a speech recognition server, classified in G10L 15/02.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other, because of the following reasons:
Inventions I and II are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j).
In the instant case, the inventions as claimed products have materially different design, mode of operation, and function. For instance, the claims of Invention I are directed to a system for using audio input instructions to execute commands on a remote target apparatus, such as a multifunctional peripheral (MFP) like a printer or scanner. The claims of Invention II are directed to a server for accepting audio input and translating said audio input into job execution instructions.
While the inventions are capable of interacting through the exchange of data between the two, each performs distinct functions separate from those of its counterpart. Furthermore, there is no product that would infringe both of the identified inventions.
In addition, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
The ‘106 patent issued with claims 1-11, which are directed to Invention I. Accordingly, the claims of Invention I are held to be constructively elected by original presentation. The claim of Invention II (claim 21) is therefore non-elected and withdrawn from consideration. See MPEP § 1450 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.176(b).
A divisional reissue application may be filed in order to pursue constructively non-elected claim 21. If the original patent claims are found allowable and no error (other than the failure to present the non-elected claims) is being corrected in the reissue application under examination, and a divisional application has been filed for the non-elected claims, further action in the application will be suspended, pending resolution of the divisional application. At this time, the claims to the original patented invention will continue to be examined and the non-elected claim (to any added invention(s)) will be held in abeyance in a withdrawn status. The non-elected claim will only be examined if filed in a divisional reissue application.
XII. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2-9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2-9, these claims are directed to an information processing apparatus (i.e., apparatus claims). However, claims 2-9 also include method steps (e.g., “detects”, “generates”, “outputs” in claim 2).
The presence of method steps in an apparatus claim renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear whether the claim would be infringed by an apparatus capable of carrying out the claimed method steps, or if the actual execution of the method steps would be necessary for infringement.
With respect to claims 5 and 16, these claims recite the limitation "the remote target apparatus for which communication has been established". However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior recitation of the establishment of communication with the remote target apparatus.
XIII. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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, 6, 8-12, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,686,951 to Jacek Joseph Matysiak et al. (“Matysiak”).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Matysiak teaches an information processing apparatus comprising circuitry (see mobile device 108, Figs. 1 and 3; see also disclosure that mobile device 108 can comprise a cellular telephone, smartphone, tablet, or similar mobile device, col. 9, lines 45-53) configured to:
a) acquire audio information via the information processing apparatus to be used for executing an information processing capability of a remote target apparatus (see disclosure that using mobile device 108 a user can interact with MFP 112 [i.e., the remote target apparatus] through a sequence of natural language text and/or voice messages, col. 10, lines 8-10);
b) recognize the audio information (this feature is inherent in the disclosed information processing apparatus, since it is disclosed that the audio information is pre-processed to extract audio data from received voice messages, col. 10, lines 60-64; the audio information must be recognized as such before it can be pre-processed);
c) transmit audio data representing the audio information to at least one remote server (see disclosure that the received voice messages can be pre-processed to extract audio data from the received messages, and that data can be provided to the cloud-based services 305 for further processing by the NLP applications 325, col. 10, lines 60-64, col. 13, lines 15-19, and col. 14, lines 64-66; this pre-processing can identify portions of the natural language expression in the received voice message that are relevant and/or particularly directed to access or to control the printing and/or scanning functions of the MFP, col. 15, lines 1-17);
d) receive specific text instruction information corresponding to the acquired audio information from the at least one remote server that includes a job type and a job setting value indicating specific information processing to be instructed to the target apparatus based on a recognition result of the acquired audio information (see disclosure that at step 520, the one or more servers receive the audio data, and at step 525, the one or more servers can perform natural language processing on the audio data to generate one or more entities or intents, which are returned to the MFP, col. 14, lines 24-31; see also disclosure that intents can comprise information identifying an action the user wishes to perform or request, e.g., a command to be initiated, a function to be performed, etc., while entities can comprise information identifying, defining, or clarifying a subject of or context for an action, col. 14, lines 32-51);
e) convert the received specific text instruction information into specific operation execution information described in an information format interpretable by the remote target apparatus based on the job type and the job setting value included in the specific text instruction information (see disclosure that the received intents and entities [i.e., specific text instruction information] can be processed to determine one or more functions [i.e., specific execution information] related to the voice message, and after the settings, functions, or options have been confirmed by the user, the one or more functions can be performed, col. 14, lines 1-3, col. 15, lines 29-33 and 60-65); and
f) wherein the circuitry provides verbal feedback comprising dot per inch resolution for scan or copy (see disclosure that MFPs offer the ability to print, scan, fax, and otherwise process documents in a wide variety of formats and in a number of different ways, including printing or scanning with various levels of resolution, etc., and that control of the functions of MFPs were typically performed manually through a control panel, but navigating menus can be daunting and time consuming, and thus there is a need for improved methods and systems for accessing and controlling the functions of an MFP, col. 1, lines 19-46; see also disclosure that when a desired function has been identified, and after a user has provided identity information, preference information can be accessed to identify personalized settings, functions, or options [e.g., dot per inch resolution] for using the MFP, and an indication of these personalized settings, functions, or options can be provided to the user at the mobile device, where the user can either confirm the settings, functions, or options, or may request one or more different settings, functions, or options, col. 13, lines 44-67, and col. 15, lines 34-59).
Matysiak does not explicitly teach an information processing apparatus whereby the conversion of received specific text instruction information is performed by the mobile device, and the resulting specific operation execution information is transmitted to the remote target apparatus [i.e., the MFP].
However, Matysiak does teach that the functions carried out by the disclosed system can be implemented on various components of the system. For instance, it is disclosed at col. 13, lines 8-22, that the conversion of voice messages into intents and entities can be implemented in a remote NLP application, or can alternately be performed locally on the MFP.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to implement the conversion of received specific text instruction information on the mobile device, and then transmit the resulting specific operation instruction information to the remote target apparatus [i.e., the MFP], since this would remove a significant processing workload from the MFP, allowing the MFP to utilize a simpler architecture and software, limited to the operation of the MFP itself.
In addition, the relocation of the conversion operation from the MFP to the mobile device would have been obvious to try, since there are a limited number of platforms within the claimed system (e.g., the mobile device, the at least one remote server, the remote target device) that could host the claimed conversion functionality.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement the conversion functionality on any of the platforms, since (1) the conversion functionality would have been necessary in order to implement a voice-based user interface for an MFP, (2) the three possible platforms on which the functionality could be implemented would be the mobile device, the MFP [i.e., remote target device] itself, or a remote server, and (3) the conversion functionality could be implemented on any of these platforms by a POSITA with a reasonable expectation of success, since the software implementing it could be similarly executed by a processor hosted by any of the above-cited platforms, and the system disclosed by Matysiak implements the transfer of information that would be necessary to implement the conversion functionality on different platforms.
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, Matysiak teaches a method of processing information, the method comprising:
a) acquiring audio information via the information processing apparatus to be used for executing an information processing capability of a remote target apparatus (see disclosure that using mobile device 108 a user can interact with MFP 112 [i.e., the remote target apparatus] through a sequence of natural language text and/or voice messages, col. 10, lines 8-10);
b) recognizing the audio information (this feature is inherent in the disclosed information processing apparatus, since it is disclosed that the audio information is pre-processed to extract audio data from received voice messages, col. 10, lines 60-64; the audio information must be recognized as such before it can be pre-processed);
c) transmitting audio data representing the audio information to at least one remote server (see disclosure that the received voice messages can be pre-processed to extract audio data from the received messages, and that data can be provided to the cloud-based services 305 for further processing by the NLP applications 325, col. 10, lines 60-64, col. 13, lines 15-19, and col. 14, lines 64-66; this pre-processing can identify portions of the natural language expression in the received voice message that are relevant and/or particularly directed to access or to control the printing and/or scanning functions of the MFP, col. 15, lines 1-17);
d) receiving specific text instruction information corresponding to the acquired audio information from the at least one remote server that includes a job type and a job setting value indicating specific information processing to be instructed to the target apparatus based on a recognition result of the acquired audio information (see disclosure that at step 520, the one or more servers receive the audio data, and at step 525, the one or more servers can perform natural language processing on the audio data to generate one or more entities or intents, which are returned to the MFP, col. 14, lines 24-31; see also disclosure that intents can comprise information identifying an action the user wishes to perform or request, e.g., a command to be initiated, a function to be performed, etc., while entities can comprise information identifying, defining, or clarifying a subject of or context for an action, col. 14, lines 32-51);
e) converting the received specific text instruction information into specific operation execution information described in an information format interpretable by the remote target apparatus based on the job type and the job setting value included in the specific text instruction information (see disclosure that the received intents and entities [i.e., specific text instruction information] can be processed to determine one or more functions [i.e., specific execution information] related to the voice message, and after the settings, functions, or options have been confirmed by the user, the one or more functions can be performed, col. 14, lines 1-3, col. 15, lines 29-33 and 60-65); and
f) wherein the circuitry provides verbal feedback comprising dot per inch resolution for scan or copy (see disclosure that MFPs offer the ability to print, scan, fax, and otherwise process documents in a wide variety of formats and in a number of different ways, including printing or scanning with various levels of resolution, etc., and that control of the functions of MFPs were typically performed manually through a control panel, but navigating menus can be daunting and time consuming, and thus there is a need for improved methods and systems for accessing and controlling the functions of an MFP, col. 1, lines 19-46; see also disclosure that when a desired function has been identified, and after a user has provided identity information, preference information can be accessed to identify personalized settings, functions, or options [e.g., dot per inch resolution] for using the MFP, and an indication of these personalized settings, functions, or options can be provided to the user at the mobile device, where the user can either confirm the settings, functions, or options, or may request one or more different settings, functions, or options, col. 13, lines 44-67, and col. 15, lines 34-59).
Matysiak does not explicitly teach an information processing method whereby the conversion of received specific text instruction information is performed by the mobile device, and the resulting specific operation instruction information is transmitted to the remote target apparatus [i.e., the MFP].
However, Matysiak does teach that the functions carried out by the disclosed system can be implemented on various components of the system. For instance, it is disclosed at col. 13, lines 8-22, that the conversion of voice messages into intents and entities can be implemented in a remote NLP application, or can alternately be performed locally on the MFP.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to implement the conversion of received specific text instruction information on the mobile device, and then transmit the resulting specific operation execution information to the remote target apparatus [i.e., the MFP], since this would remove a significant processing workload from the MFP, allowing the MFP to utilize a simpler architecture and software, limited to the operation of the MFP itself.
In addition, the relocation of the conversion operation from the MFP to the mobile device would have been obvious to try, since there are a limited number of platforms within the claimed system (e.g., the mobile device, the at least one remote server, the remote target device) that could host the claimed conversion functionality.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement the conversion functionality on any of the platforms, since (1) the conversion functionality would have been necessary in order to implement a voice-based user interface for an MFP, (2) the three possible platforms on which the functionality could be implemented would be the mobile device, the MFP [i.e., remote target device] itself, or a remote server, and (3) the conversion functionality could be implemented on any of these platforms by a POSITA with a reasonable expectation of success, since the software implementing it could be similarly executed by a processor hosted by any of the above-cited platforms, and the system disclosed by Matysiak implements the transfer of information that would be necessary to implement the conversion functionality on different platforms.
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, Matysiak teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more instructions that, when performed by one or more processors (inherent in a computerized system; see also claim 1; col. 4, lines 25-67; col. 9, lines 20-39), cause the one or more processors to execute a method of processing information, the method comprising:
a) acquiring audio information via the information processing apparatus to be used for executing an information processing capability of a remote target apparatus (see disclosure that using mobile device 108 a user can interact with MFP 112 [i.e., the remote target apparatus] through a sequence of natural language text and/or voice messages, col. 10, lines 8-10);
b) recognizing the audio information (this feature is inherent in the disclosed information processing apparatus, since it is disclosed that the audio information is pre-processed to extract audio data from received voice messages, col. 10, lines 60-64; the audio information must be recognized as such before it can be pre-processed);
c) transmitting audio data representing the audio information to at least one remote server (see disclosure that the received voice messages can be pre-processed to extract audio data from the received messages, and that data can be provided to the cloud-based services 305 for further processing by the NLP applications 325, col. 10, lines 60-64, col. 13, lines 15-19, and col. 14, lines 64-66; this pre-processing can identify portions of the natural language expression in the received voice message that are relevant and/or particularly directed to access or to control the printing and/or scanning functions of the MFP, col. 15, lines 1-17);
d) receiving specific text instruction information corresponding to the acquired audio information from the at least one remote server that includes a job type and a job setting value indicating specific information processing to be instructed to the target apparatus based on a recognition result of the acquired audio information (see disclosure that at step 520, the one or more servers receive the audio data, and at step 525, the one or more servers can perform natural language processing on the audio data to generate one or more entities or intents, which are returned to the MFP, col. 14, lines 24-31; see also disclosure that intents can comprise information identifying an action the user wishes to perform or request, e.g., a command to be initiated, a function to be performed, etc., while entities can comprise information identifying, defining, or clarifying a subject of or context for an action, col. 14, lines 32-51);
e) converting the received specific text instruction information into specific operation execution information described in an information format interpretable by the remote target apparatus based on the job type and the job setting value included in the specific text instruction information (see disclosure that the received intents and entities [i.e., specific text instruction information] can be processed to determine one or more functions [i.e., specific execution information] related to the voice message, and after the settings, functions, or options have been confirmed by the user, the one or more functions can be performed, col. 14, lines 1-3, col. 15, lines 29-33 and 60-65); and
f) wherein the circuitry provides verbal feedback comprising dot per inch resolution for scan or copy (see disclosure that MFPs offer the ability to print, scan, fax, and otherwise process documents in a wide variety of formats and in a number of different ways, including printing or scanning with various levels of resolution, etc., and that control of the functions of MFPs were typically performed manually through a control panel, but navigating menus can be daunting and time consuming, and thus there is a need for improved methods and systems for accessing and controlling the functions of an MFP, col. 1, lines 19-46; see also disclosure that when a desired function has been identified, and after a user has provided identity information, preference information can be accessed to identify personalized settings, functions, or options [e.g., dot per inch resolution] for using the MFP, and an indication of these personalized settings, functions, or options can be provided to the user at the mobile device, where the user can either confirm the settings, functions, or options, or may request one or more different settings, functions, or options, col. 13, lines 44-67, and col. 15, lines 34-59).
Matysiak does not explicitly teach a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more instructions that, when performed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to execute a method of processing information, whereby the conversion of received specific text instruction information is performed by the mobile device, and the resulting specific operation instruction information is transmitted to the remote target apparatus [i.e., the MFP].
However, Matysiak does teach that the functions carried out by the disclosed system can be implemented on various components of the system. For instance, it is disclosed at col. 13, lines 8-22, that the conversion of voice messages into intents and entities can be implemented in a remote NLP application, or can alternately be performed locally on the MFP.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to implement the conversion of received specific text instruction information on the mobile device, and then transmit the resulting specific operation execution information to the remote target apparatus [i.e., the MFP], since this would remove a significant processing workload from the MFP, allowing the MFP to utilize a simpler architecture and software, limited to the operation of the MFP itself.
In addition, the relocation of the conversion operation from the MFP to the mobile device would have been obvious to try, since there are a limited number of platforms within the claimed system (e.g., the mobile device, the at least one remote server, the remote target device) that could host the claimed conversion functionality.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement the conversion functionality on any of the platforms, since (1) the conversion functionality would have been necessary in order to implement a voice-based user interface for an MFP, (2) the three possible platforms on which the functionality could be implemented would be the mobile device, the MFP [i.e., remote target device] itself, or a remote server, and (3) the conversion functionality could be implemented on any of these platforms by a POSITA with a reasonable expectation of success, since the software implementing it could be similarly executed by a processor hosted by any of the above-cited platforms, and the system disclosed by Matysiak implements the transfer of information that would be necessary to implement the conversion functionality on different platforms.
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, Matysiak teaches a system comprising a microphone configured to acquire audio information (see disclosure of mobile device 108, Figs. 1 and 3; see also disclosure that mobile device 108 can comprise a cellular telephone, smartphone, tablet, or similar mobile device, col. 9, lines 45-53; see also disclosure that using mobile device 108 a user can interact with MFP 112 [i.e., the remote target apparatus] through a sequence of natural language text and/or voice messages, col. 10, lines 8-10; the Office notes that a microphone is inherent in a cellular telephone or smartphone, and also that a microphone would be necessary to receive the disclosed voice message) to be used for executing an information processing capability of a remote target apparatus (see Multi-Function Printer 112, Figs. 1 and 3); and circuitry configured to:
a) recognize the audio information (this feature is inherent in the disclosed information processing apparatus, since it is disclosed that the audio information is pre-processed to extract audio data from received voice messages, col. 10, lines 60-64; the audio information must be recognized as such before it can be pre-processed);
b) transmit audio data representing the audio information to at least one remote server (see disclosure that the received voice messages can be pre-processed to extract audio data from the received messages, and that data can be provided to the cloud-based services 305 for further processing by the NLP applications 325, col. 10, lines 60-64, col. 13, lines 15-19, and col. 14, lines 64-66; this pre-processing can identify portions of the natural language expression in the received voice message that are relevant and/or particularly directed to access or to control the printing and/or scanning functions of the MFP, col. 15, lines 1-17);
c) receive specific text instruction information corresponding to the acquired audio information from the at least one remote server that includes a type of the information processing capability of the remote target apparatus and a setting value indicating specific information processing to be instructed to the target apparatus based on a recognition result of the acquired audio information (see disclosure that at step 520, the one or more servers receive the audio data, and at step 525, the one or more servers can perform natural language processing on the audio data to generate one or more entities or intents, which are returned to the MFP, col. 14, lines 24-31; see also disclosure that intents can comprise information identifying an action the user wishes to perform or request, e.g., a command to be initiated, a function to be performed, etc., while entities can comprise information identifying, defining, or clarifying a subject of or context for an action, col. 14, lines 32-51);
d) convert the received specific text instruction information into specific operation execution information described in an information format interpretable by the remote target apparatus based on the type of information processing capability of the remote target apparatus and the setting value included in the specific text instruction information (see disclosure that the received intents and entities [i.e., specific text instruction information] can be processed to determine one or more functions [i.e., specific execution information] related to the voice message, and after the settings, functions, or options have been confirmed by the user, the one or more functions can be performed, col. 14, lines 1-3, col. 15, lines 29-33 and 60-65).
Matysiak does not explicitly teach a system whereby the conversion of received specific text instruction information is performed by the mobile device, and the resulting specific operation instruction information is transmitted to the remote target apparatus [i.e., the MFP].
However, Matysiak does teach that the functions carried out by the disclosed system can be implemented on various components of the system. For instance, it is disclosed at col. 13, lines 8-22, that the conversion of voice messages into intents and entities can be implemented in a remote NLP application, or can alternately be performed locally on the MFP.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to implement the conversion of received specific text instruction information on the mobile device, and then transmit the resulting specific operation execution information to the remote target apparatus [i.e., the MFP], since this would remove a significant processing workload from the MFP, allowing the MFP to utilize a simpler architecture and software, limited to the operation of the MFP itself.
In addition, the relocation of the conversion operation from the MFP to the mobile device would have been obvious to try, since there are a limited number of platforms within the claimed system (e.g., the mobile device, the at least one remote server, the remote target device) that could host the claimed conversion functionality.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement the conversion functionality on any of the platforms, since (1) the conversion functionality would have been necessary in order to implement a voice-based user interface for an MFP, (2) the three possible platforms on which the functionality could be implemented would be the mobile device, the MFP [i.e., remote target device] itself, or a remote server, and (3) the conversion functionality could be implemented on any of these platforms by a POSITA with a reasonable expectation of success, since the software implementing it could be similarly executed by a processor hosted by any of the above-cited platforms, and the system disclosed by Matysiak implements the transfer of information that would be necessary to implement the conversion functionality on different platforms.
Claims 6 and 17
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Matysiak teaches an information processing apparatus and system wherein the circuitry:
a) converts the audio information into text information (see disclosure that the received voice messages can be pre-processed to extract audio data from the received messages, and that data can be provided to the cloud-based services 305 for further processing by the NLP applications 325, col. 10, lines 60-64, col. 13, lines 15-19, and col. 14, lines 64-66; this pre-processing can identify portions of the natural language expression in the received voice message that are relevant and/or particularly directed to access or to control the printing and/or scanning functions of the MFP, col. 15, lines 1-17); and
b) obtains the specific text instruction information from the text information (see disclosure that at step 520, the one or more servers receive the audio data, and at step 525, the one or more servers can perform natural language processing on the audio data to generate one or more entities or intents [i.e., the specific text instruction information], which are returned to the MFP, col. 14, lines 24-31; see also disclosure that intents can comprise information identifying an action the user wishes to perform or request, e.g., a command to be initiated, a function to be performed, etc., while entities can comprise information identifying, defining, or clarifying a subject of or context for an action, col. 14, lines 32-51).
Claims 8 and 19
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Matysiak teaches an information processing apparatus and system wherein the circuitry is further configured to output, together with the specific operation execution information, an electronic mail address used as a transmission destination of image information generated by the target apparatus (see disclosure that in one example, an intent can be “Scan” and an entity can comprise “To email” and possibly another entity identifying an email address, col. 13, lines 33-35 and col. 14, lines 38-40).
Claims 9 and 20
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Matysiak teaches an information processing apparatus and system wherein the circuitry is further configured to:
a) transmit audio data of the acquired audio information to the at least one remote server (see disclosure that the received voice messages can be pre-processed to extract audio data from the received messages, and that data can be provided to the cloud-based services 305 for further processing by the NLP applications 325, col. 10, lines 60-64, col. 13, lines 15-19, and col. 14, lines 64-66; this pre-processing can identify portions of the natural language expression in the received voice message that are relevant and/or particularly directed to access or to control the printing and/or scanning functions of the MFP, col. 15, lines 1-17); and
b) transmit an audio-to-text conversion request to the at least one remote server (see disclosure that at step 520, the one or more servers receive the audio data, and at step 525, the one or more servers can perform natural language processing on the audio data to generate one or more entities or intents [i.e., text data], which are returned to the MFP, col. 14, lines 24-31; see also disclosure that intents can comprise information identifying an action the user wishes to perform or request, e.g., a command to be initiated, a function to be performed, etc., while entities can comprise information identifying, defining, or clarifying a subject of or context for an action, col. 14, lines 32-51; the Office notes that the conversion of audio data to one or more entities or intents renders the claimed audio-to-text request inherent).
Claims 2-5, 7, 13-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S, Patent 10,686,951 to Jacek Joseph Matysiak et al. (“Matysiak”) in view of U.S. Patent 9,652,190 to Keisuke Fukushima (“Fukushima”).
Claims 2 and 13
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Matysiak teaches an information processing apparatus and system substantially as claimed.
Matysiak fails to explicitly teach an information processing apparatus and system wherein target apparatus capabilities are detected and the user is prompted to modify the settings of the specific text instruction information when the target apparatus is not capable of executing the requested instruction.
Fukushima, however, teaches an information processing apparatus and system,
a) wherein the circuitry detects information processing capability of the target apparatus including identifying the target apparatus and available print job/information processing capabilities of the target apparatus (see illustration of the display of information about printing device 606 [i.e., the target apparatus] in pop-up box 642, Fig. 6D and col. 15, lines 29-41);
b) wherein the circuitry generates modification information to be used for prompting a modification of the specific text instruction information indicating the specific information processing so that the specific information processing indicated by the specific text instruction information is executable at the target apparatus using the detected information processing capability of the target apparatus (see disclosure that when a print job is directed to a printer device that is incompatible with the print job settings, the user interface may prompt the user to request confirmation that one or more print job settings will be modified or ignored, col. 22, lines 37-49); and
c) wherein the circuitry outputs a message for prompting the modification of the specific text instruction information based on the generated modification information (see disclosure that when a print job is directed to a printer device that is incompatible with the print job settings, the user interface may prompt the user to request confirmation that one or more print job settings will be modified or ignored, col. 22, lines 37-49).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to prompt the user to confirm modification of the settings of the instruction, since the user may wish to cancel execution of the job when the capabilities of the target device would produce an unsuitable result, or may confirm the changed print settings if the changed settings are satisfactory to the user.
Claims 3 and 14
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Matysiak teaches an information processing apparatus and system additionally comprising a speaker (inherent in a mobile device that is a cellular telephone or smartphone) and an interface configured to connect with the microphone and the speaker (inherent in a mobile device that is a cellular telephone or smartphone), wherein the circuitry is further configured to:
a) acquire the audio information from the microphone via the interface (see disclosure that using mobile device 108 a user can interact with MFP 112 [i.e., the remote target apparatus] through a sequence of natural language text and/or voice messages, col. 10, lines 8-10; the Office notes that a microphone is inherent in a cellular telephone or smartphone, and also that a microphone would be necessary to receive the disclosed voice message); and
b) output audio of the message for prompting the modification of the specific text instruction information from the speaker via the interface (see disclosure that MFPs offer the ability to print, scan, fax, and otherwise process documents in a wide variety of formats and in a number of different ways, including printing or scanning with various levels of resolution, etc., and that control of the functions of MFPs were typically performed manually through a control panel, but navigating menus can be daunting and time consuming, and thus there is a need for improved methods and systems for accessing and controlling the functions of an MFP, col. 1, lines 19-46; see also disclosure that when a desired function has been identified, and after a user has provided identity information, preference information can be accessed to identify personalized settings, functions, or options [e.g., dot per inch resolution] for using the MFP, and an indication of these personalized settings, functions, or options can be provided to the user at the mobile device, where the user can either confirm the settings, functions, or options, or may request one or more different settings, functions, or options, col. 13, lines 44-67, and col. 15, lines 34-59).
Claims 4 and 15
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Fukushima teaches an information processing apparatus and system wherein the circuitry is further configured to:
a) determine whether the specific text instruction information is insufficient for operating the remote target apparatus (see disclosure that a determination is made that the user has attempted to direct a print job having one or more print job settings that are incompatible with the selected printing device, col. 22, lines 37-39);
b) output an instruction for prompting an input of the specific text instruction information determined to be insufficient (see disclosure that when a print job is directed to a printer device that is incompatible with the print job settings, the user interface may prompt the user to request confirmation that one or more print job settings will be modified or ignored, col. 22, lines 37-49); and
c) in response to an input of all of the specific text instruction information required for operating the remote target apparatus,
i) confirm the input of all of the specific text instruction information required for operating the remote target apparatus (see disclosure that the user confirms the print job despite that change in settings, col. 22, lines 42-49); and
ii) convert the specific text instruction information to the specific operation execution information for operating the remote target apparatus (see disclosure that the user confirms the change in settings for the print job, and when confirmed, the print job is executed with the new settings, col. 22, lines 37-49).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to prompt the user to confirm modification of the settings of the instruction, since the user may wish to cancel execution of the job when the capabilities of the target device would produce an unsuitable result, or may confirm the changed print settings if the changed settings are satisfactory to the user.
Neither Matysiak nor Fukushima explicitly teaches a system whereby the conversion of received specific text instruction information is performed by the mobile device, and the resulting specific operation instruction information is transmitted to the remote target apparatus [i.e., the MFP].
However, Matysiak does teach that the functions carried out by the disclosed system can be implemented on various components of the system. For instance, it is disclosed at col. 13, lines 8-22, that the conversion of voice messages into intents and entities can be implemented in a remote NLP application, or can alternately be performed locally on the MFP.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to implement the conversion of received specific text instruction information on the mobile device, and then transmit the resulting specific operation execution information to the remote target apparatus [i.e., the MFP], since this would remove a significant processing workload from the MFP, allowing the MFP to utilize a simpler architecture and software, limited to the operation of the MFP itself.
In addition, the relocation of the conversion operation from the MFP to the mobile device would have been obvious to try, since there are a limited number of platforms within the claimed system (e.g., the mobile device, the at least one remote server, the remote target device) that could host the claimed conversion functionality.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement the conversion functionality on any of the platforms, since (1) the conversion functionality would have been necessary in order to implement a voice-based user interface for an MFP, (2) the three possible platforms on which the functionality could be implemented would be the mobile device, the MFP [i.e., remote target device] itself, or a remote server, and (3) the conversion functionality could be implemented on any of these platforms by a POSITA with a reasonable expectation of success, since the software implementing it could be similarly executed by a processor hosted by any of the above-cited platforms, and the system disclosed by Matysiak implements the transfer of information that would be necessary to implement the conversion functionality on different platforms.
Claims 5 and 16
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Fukushima teaches an information processing apparatus and system wherein the circuitry is further configured to acquire information indicating a type and a function of the remote target apparatus for which communication has been established (see illustration of the display of information about printing device 606 [i.e., the target apparatus] in pop-up box 642, Fig. 6D and col. 15, lines 29-41).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to acquire information indicating the type and function of a remote target apparatus, since this would allow the system to determine whether a user-requested action is directed to a target apparatus having the capability to carry out the requested action.
Claims 7 and 18
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Matysiak and Fukushima teach an information processing apparatus and system wherein the circuitry obtains print target information instructed by the specific text instruction information from a memory (see disclosure that the user device 108 can interact with MFP 112, rendering the obtaining of print target information inherent, Matysiak, col. 10, lines 8-10; see also disclosure of network topology generation unit 210 that formulates a network topology and/or generates a network printing map, Fukushima, col. 8, lines 36-55).
Neither Matysiak nor Fukushima explicitly teaches a system whereby the conversion of received specific text instruction information is performed by the mobile device, and the resulting specific operation instruction information is transmitted to the remote target apparatus [i.e., the MFP].
However, Matysiak does teach that the functions carried out by the disclosed system can be implemented on various components of the system. For instance, it is disclosed at col. 13, lines 8-22, that the conversion of voice messages into intents and entities can be implemented in a remote NLP application, or can alternately be performed locally on the MFP.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to implement the conversion of received specific text instruction information on the mobile device, and then transmit the resulting specific operation execution information to the remote target apparatus [i.e., the MFP], since this would remove a significant processing workload from the MFP, allowing the MFP to utilize a simpler architecture and software, limited to the operation of the MFP itself.
In addition, the relocation of the conversion operation from the MFP to the mobile device would have been obvious to try, since there are a limited number of platforms within the claimed system (e.g., the mobile device, the at least one remote server, the remote target device) that could host the claimed conversion functionality.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement the conversion functionality on any of the platforms, since (1) the conversion functionality would have been necessary in order to implement a voice-based user interface for an MFP, (2) the three possible platforms on which the functionality could be implemented would be the mobile device, the MFP [i.e., remote target device] itself, or a remote server, and (3) the conversion functionality could be implemented on any of these platforms by a POSITA with a reasonable expectation of success, since the software implementing it could be similarly executed by a processor hosted by any of the above-cited platforms, and the system disclosed by Matysiak implements the transfer of information that would be necessary to implement the conversion functionality on different platforms.
XIV. Conclusion
In accordance with MPEP § 1406, the examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited or of record in the original prosecution of the ‘106 patent. Applicants are reminded that a listing of the information cited or of record in the original prosecution of the ‘106 patent need not be resubmitted in this reissue application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this reissue application.
Applicant(s) are reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR § 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which ‘106 patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, other post-grant proceedings in the Office, and litigation.
Applicant(s) are further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant(s) are also reminded that any amendments to the claims must comply with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph, having clear support and antecedent basis in the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke S. Wassum whose telephone number is (571) 272-4119. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 AM-5 PM, alternate Fridays off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Fuelling can be reached on 571-270-1367. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-9900.
In addition, INFORMAL or DRAFT communications may be faxed directly to the examiner at 571-273-4119. Such communications must be clearly marked as INFORMAL, DRAFT or UNOFFICIAL.
Patent Center
Patent Center is available to all users for electronic filing and management of patent applications. For more information, please visit the Patent Center information page at www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center.
/LUKE S WASSUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/Stephen J. Ralis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /MF/ Michael Fuelling
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3992
lsw
11 February 2026