DETAILED ACTION
Non-final Office Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Reissue
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
This action is responsive to communications: The instant application filed August 28, 2024 which is a reissue of application 17/229,435 (U.S. Patent No. 11,585,514, published February 21, 2023).
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.
Claims 1-15 were published in US Patent 11,585,514. A preliminary amendment was filed concurrently with the application on August 28, 2024. By way of the preliminary amendment, original claims 1-15 were canceled and new claims 16-35 were added. Therefore, claims 16-35 are currently pending in the application.
Claims
The present reissue includes original claims 16-35. Independent claims 16, 26 and 35 are reproduced below.
16. (New) A ring flash light diffusion device comprising:
a body formed with a semitransparent material, the body including:
a first circular wall;
a second circular wall tapered toward the first circular wall;
a ring of the semitransparent material connecting the first circular wall and the second circular wall, wherein the first circular wall defines an opening extending from an inner circumference of the ring; and
an attachment means at an end of the first circular wall that is opposite the ring; and
wherein the body forms a concave cavity defined by the first circular wall, the second circular wall, and the ring such that light emitted from a light emitting portion of a ring flash positioned at the end of the first circular wall passes through the cavity of the ring flash light diffusion device.
26. (New) A ring flash light diffusion device comprising:
a body formed with a plurality of materials, the plurality of materials including a semitransparent material, the body including:
a first circular wall comprising a first material;
a second circular wall comprising a second material; and
a ring of the semitransparent material connecting the first circular wall and the second circular wall, wherein the first circular wall defines an opening extending from an inner circumference of the ring; and
wherein the body forms a concave cavity defined by the first circular wall, the second circular wall, and the ring such that light emitted from a light emitting portion of a ring flash positioned at an end of the first circular wall passes through the cavity of the ring flash light diffusion device.
35. (New) A ring flash light diffusion device comprising:
a body formed with semitransparent material, the body including:
an inner wall;
an outer wall; and
a ring of the semitransparent material connecting the inner wall and the outer wall, wherein the inner wall defines an opening extending from a proximal to a distal end of the body; and
wherein the body forms a concave cavity defined by the inner wall, the outer wall, and the ring such that light emitted from a light emitting portion of a ring flash positioned at an end of the inner wall passes through the cavity of the ring flash light diffusion device.
Claim Objections
The following is a quote from 37 C.F.R. 1.173(d):
“(d) Changes shown by markings. Any changes relative to the patent being reissued which are made to the specification, including the claims, upon filing, or by an amendment paper in the reissue application, must include the following markings:
(1)The matter to be omitted by reissue must be enclosed in brackets; and
(2)The matter to be added by reissue must be underlined, except for amendments submitted on compact discs (§§ 1.96 and 1.821(c)). Matter added by reissue on compact discs must be preceded with “U” and end with “/U” to properly identify the material being added.” (emphasis examiner)
New claims 16-35 need to be underlined in their entirety as they are added relative to the patent (37 C.F.R. 1.173(d)(2)).
Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP 1453 on how to make amendments.
Oath/Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective because the error which is relied upon to support the reissue application is not an error upon which a reissue can be based. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414.
The error that Patent Owner gave:
“Applicant claimed less than Applicant had a right to claim. During prosecution of US. Patent No. 11,585,514, the claims were inadvertently limited in scope, failing to capture disclosed embodiments described in the specification. Specifically, the issued claims, including claim 1, were confined to a ring flash light diffusion device where the second circular wall was made of semitransparant material. The specification, however, supports broader embodiments, including the use of multiple materials and tapered designs for the second circular wall, which were unintentionally overlooked in the original claims. This broadening reissue seeks to correct that oversight by incorporating claims, such as claims 16, 26, and 35, that reflect a fuller scape of the invention as disclosed.”
is not an acceptable error, as the claim language that is being omitted in the reissue application “a second circular wall, comprising the semitransparent material” was relied on to define over the prior art of record in the underlying non-provisional application, 17/229,435. See Recapture rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
Claims 16-35 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.
Claims 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See In re McDonald, 43 F.4th 1340, 1345, 2022 USPQ2d 745 (Fed. Cir. 2022); 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). A broadening aspect is present in the reissue which was not present in the application for patent. 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.
The determination for whether any newly presented claims are subject to recapture is made by the three step test for recapture (MPEP 1412.02):
For Claims 16, 26 and 35:
Step One:
New independent claims 16, 26 and 35 are broader in at least one respect than the patented independent claim 1. With respect to patented claims 16, 26 and 35, none of the new claims recite “a second circular wall, comprising the semitransparent material”
Step Two:
The broadened aspects of claims 16, 26 and 35 mentioned above relate to subject matter surrendered in applicant's responses filed in US Application 17/229,435.
Both in the remarks filed by Applicant, on 10/11/2022, and in the examiner’s Reasons for Allowance, mailed 10/26/2022, the language “a second circular wall, comprising the semitransparent material” (emphasis examiner) has been established as critical to the patentability of independent patented claim 1. This is a Surrender Generating Limitation (SGL).
Specifically on page 7 of the response filed on October 11, 2022, then-applicant argues:
“Schileo is directed to ‘a lighting attachment and more specifically relates to a lighting attachment which provides white and/or UV lighting to a hand-held magnifying lens or loupe. (Schileo, para. 0001.) Notably, Schileo lacks any mention of a ring flash or ring flash diffusers.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, ‘a second circular wall, comprising the semitransparent material, ... and wherein the body forms a concave cavity defined by the first circular wall, the second circular wall, and the ring such that light emitted from a light emitting portion of a ring flash positioned at the end of the first circular wall passes through the cavity and the body of the ring flash light diffusion device’.
The Office Action cites inner wall 12 as well as collectively the outer wall 11, annular flange 13, and light guide 7 from para. 0022 and Fig. 1 of Schileo as allegedly teaching these features as previously recited. However, Schileo does not disclose a second circular wall, comprising the semitransparent material, ... and wherein the body forms a concave cavity defined by the first circular wall, the second circular wall, and the ring such that light emitted from a light emitting portion of a ring flash positioned at the end of the first circular wall passes through the cavity and the body of the ring flash light diffusion device. There is no indication in Schileo that the inner 12 is formed of a semitransparent material. Further, noting that there is no ring flash taught, suggested or disclosed in Schileo to the extent any light emitting elements are disclosed, the light from them does not pass through a cavity and body of the ring flash diffusion device.
Therefore, Schileo does not anticipate at least ‘a second circular wall, comprising the semitransparent material, ... and wherein the body forms a concave cavity defined by the first circular wall, the second circular wall, and the ring such that light emitted from a light emitting portion of a ring flash positioned at the end of the first circular wall passes through the cavity and the body of the ring flash light diffusion device’ as recited in independent claim 1. For at least the reasons stated above, Schileo fails to disclose all of the features of claim 16. Therefore, applicant respectfully submits that claim 16 is patentable over the cited reference.”
Step Three:
New independent claims 16 and 26 are narrower than patented claim 1 in the following respects:
Claim 16: a second circular wall tapered toward the first circular wall.
Claim 26: a first circular wall comprising a first material; a second circular wall comprising a second material.
which is considered to be materially narrowed in other aspects not related to the SGL.
See MPEP 1412.02 (C).
Claim 35 is not materially narrowed with respect to patented claim 1 in any respect.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 16 recites inter alia “a second circular wall tapered toward the first circular wall”. Claim 25 depends on claim 16 and recites “wherein the second wall is parallel to the first wall”. If the second circular wall is tapered toward the first circular wall (claim 16), then the second wall cannot be parallel to the first wall, as recited in claim 25. This makes claim 25 confusing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16, 18-20, 22, 23, 26, 29, 30 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 11,163,100 to Armbruster et al. (Armbruster et al.).
With respect to claim 16, Armbruster et al. teaches a “ring flash” light diffusion device comprising:
a body (figures 1A-1F) formed with a semitransparent material (See column 6, line 63 to col. 7, line 5), the body including:
a first circular wall (adjacent number 54, See annotated drawing below);
a second circular wall (46, 50, See annotated drawing below) tapered toward the first circular wall (See figure 1A);
a ring (adjacent 18A of figure 1A. See also figure 1B and annotated drawing below) of the semitransparent material (See column 6, line 63 to col. 7, line 5, all of waveguide 18a is translucent/semitransparent) connecting the first circular wall and the second circular wall (See figures 1A and 1B), wherein the first circular wall defines an opening extending from an inner circumference of the ring (See figures 1A and 1B); and
an attachment means 158 at an end of the first circular wall that is opposite the ring; and
wherein the body forms a concave cavity defined by the first circular wall, the second circular wall, and the ring (see figures 1A and 1B).
PNG
media_image1.png
560
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to the limitation “such that light emitted from a light emitting portion of a ring flash positioned at the end of the first circular wall passes through the cavity of the ring flash light diffusion device”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
With respect to claim 18, Armbruster et al. teaches wherein the second circular wall is angled at an acute angle relative to a rotational axis of symmetry of the opening such that the body is tapered in a direction going from a distal end to a proximal end relative to the attachment means (See figures 1A and 1B. Distal and proximal ends have not been established as to which is which).
With respect to claim 19, Armbruster et al. teaches wherein the ring is perpendicular relative to its axis of rotation (See figures 1A and 1B).
With respect to claim 20, Armbruster et al. teaches wherein the ring is angled relative to at least one of the first wall and the second wall (See figures 1A and 1B).
With respect to claim 22, Armbruster et al. teaches wherein the body at least partially covers the light emitting portion of the ring flash when the body is connected to the ring flash, as the language partially covering “the light emitting portion of the ring flash when the body is connected to the ring flash” is considered intended use. Supra.
With respect to claim 23, Armbruster et al. teaches wherein the first circular wall and the second circular wall define the cavity configured to cover the light emitting portion of the ring flash such that light emitted from the ring flash passes through the ring of the body of the ring flash light diffusion device after passing through the cavity, as the language covering “the light emitting portion of the ring flash such that light emitted from the ring flash passes through the ring of the body of the ring flash light diffusion device after passing through the cavity” is considered intended use. Supra.
With respect to claim 26, Armbruster et al. teaches a “ring flash” light diffusion device comprising:
a body formed with a plurality of materials, the plurality of materials including a semitransparent material (See column 6, line 63 to col. 7, line 5), the body including:
a first circular wall (adjacent number 54, See annotated drawing above) comprising a first material;
a second circular wall comprising a second material (46, 50, See annotated drawing above. The first and second material is considered to be the same material); and
a ring of the semitransparent material (See column 6, line 63 to col. 7, line 5) connecting the first circular wall and the second circular wall (adjacent 18A of figure 1A. See also figure 1B and annotated drawing above), wherein the first circular wall defines an opening extending from an inner circumference of the ring (See figures 1A and 1B); and
wherein the body forms a concave cavity defined by the first circular wall, the second circular wall.
With respect to the limitation “such that light emitted from a light emitting portion of a ring flash positioned at an end of the first circular wall passes through the cavity of the ring flash light diffusion device”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
With respect to claim 29, Armbruster et al. teaches wherein the ring is perpendicular relative to its axis of rotation (See figures 1A and 1B).
With respect to claim 30, Armbruster et al. teaches wherein the ring is angled relative to at least one of the first wall and the second wall (See figures 1A and 1B).
With respect to claim 35, Armbruster et al. teaches a “ring flash” light diffusion device comprising:
a body formed with semitransparent material (See column 6, line 63 to col. 7, line 5), the body including:
an inner wall (adjacent number 54, See annotated drawing above);
an outer wall (46, 50, See annotated drawing above); and
a ring of the semitransparent material connecting the inner wall and the outer wall (adjacent 18A of figure 1A. See also figure 1B and annotated drawing above), wherein the inner wall defines an opening extending from a proximal to a distal end of the body (See figures 1A and 1B); and
wherein the body forms a concave cavity defined by the inner wall, the outer wall, and the ring.
With respect to the limitation “such that light emitted from a light emitting portion of a ring flash positioned at an end of the inner wall passes through the cavity of the ring flash light diffusion device”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Supra.
Claim(s) 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 20-2011-009084 (Lee et al.).
With respect to claim 26, Lee et. al. teaches a ring flash light diffusion device comprising:
a body 100 formed with a plurality of materials, the plurality of materials including a semitransparent material 300, the body including:
a first circular wall (See figure 3b, annotated below) comprising a first material;
a second circular wall (See figure 3b, adjacent number 100, annotated below) comprising a second material (The first and second material is considered to be the same material); and
a ring 300 of the semitransparent material (See English translation. “300” is translucent/semitransparent) connecting the first circular wall and the second circular wall (See figure 3B and annotated drawing below), wherein the first circular wall defines an opening extending from an inner circumference of the ring (See figure 3B); and
wherein the body forms a concave cavity defined by the first circular wall, the second circular wall (See figure 3B).
PNG
media_image2.png
798
755
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to the limitation “such that light emitted from a light emitting portion of a ring flash positioned at an end of the first circular wall passes through the cavity of the ring flash light diffusion device”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
With respect to claim 28, Lee et. al. teaches wherein the second wall is parallel to the first wall (See figure 3B).
With respect to claim 29, Lee et. al. teaches wherein the ring is perpendicular relative to its axis of rotation (See figure 3B).
With respect to claim 31, Lee et. al. further teaches an attachment means 30 at an end of the first circular wall that is opposite the ring, wherein the attachment means are configured to engage corresponding attachment means along a circumference of the ring flash. See English translation under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, which states “The housing 100 has a screw thread formed on the side surface of the lens connecting portion 104 so that the connecting ring 30 is screwed in, and the lens 20 of the camera 10 is coupled to the other part of the connecting ring 30. The housing 100 is connected to the lens 20.”
With respect to claim 32, Lee et. al. teaches wherein the body at least partially covers the light emitting portion of the ring flash when the body is connected to the ring flash- as this is considered functional language, and it has been held that the recitation that an element performs a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
With respect to claim 33, Lee et. al. teaches wherein the first circular wall and the second circular wall define the cavity configured to cover the light emitting portion of the ring flash such that light emitted from the ring flash passes through the ring of the body of the ring flash light diffusion device after passing through the cavity, as it has been held that the recitation that an element performs a function (“configured to cover the light emitting portion of the ring flash such that light emitted from the ring flash passes through the ring of the body of the ring flash light diffusion device after passing through the cavity”) is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. Supra.
With respect to claim 35, Lee et. al. teaches a ring flash light diffusion device comprising:
a body 100 formed with semitransparent material 300, the body including:
an inner wall (See figure 3b annotated drawing above);
an outer wall (See figure 3b annotated drawing above); and
a ring 300 of the semitransparent material connecting the inner wall and the outer wall (See English translation. “300” is translucent/semitransparent), wherein the inner wall defines an opening extending from a proximal to a distal end of the body (See figure 3b above); and
wherein the body forms a concave cavity (See figure 3b above) defined by the inner wall, the outer wall, and the ring.
With respect to the limitation “such that light emitted from a light emitting portion of a ring flash positioned at an end of the inner wall passes through the cavity of the ring flash light diffusion device”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et. al. in combination with US 2010/0315816 to Madelin (Madelin- cited in IDS filed August 28, 2024).
With respect to claim 27, Lee et. al. does not teach wherein an inner surface or an outer surface of the body is textured.
The publication to Madelin teaches a ring flash diffusion device 2 which has an inner wall 26 and an outer wall 20, and a ring 27 connected to the inner and outer wall.
Madelin also states (para. [0068]) that “Preferably the light reflector also includes a light diffusion means to diffuse the light reflected by the reflector 2 and avoid specular reflections. This is preferably in the form of a substantially transparent diffusing lens 31 provided in front of the reflector 2, formed from transparent polycarbonate having a textured surface, for example. Polycarbonate may be sandblasted to provide a suitable textured surface.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the outer surface of the body of Lee et al. to be textured, in view of the teaching of Madelin, in order to aid in gripping of the body and also, with the texturing of the ring 300, increase the diffusivity of the light.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madelin in combination with Lee et. al.
The publication to Madelin teaches a ring flash light diffusion device comprising:
a body 2, the body including:
an inner wall 23,26;
an outer wall 20; and
a ring 21,27 connecting the inner wall and the outer wall, wherein the inner wall defines an opening (see figure 4) extending from a proximal to a distal end of the body; and
wherein the body forms a concave cavity defined by the inner wall, the outer wall, and the ring (See figure 4).
With respect to the limitations “such that light emitted from a light emitting portion of a ring flash positioned at an end of the inner wall passes through the cavity of the ring flash light diffusion device”, it has been held that the recitation that an element performs a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
Madelin does not teach the body formed with semitransparent material, or a ring of the semitransparent material.
The publication to Lee et. al. teaches a ring flash light diffusion device including a ring 300 having a translucent material (See English translation. “300” is translucent/semitransparent).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the ring of Madelin to be semitransparent, in view of the teaching of Lee et. al., in order to increase the diffusivity of the light.
Conclusion
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 11,585,514 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely appraise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
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 is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The patent to Springer (figures 7E-7H) and Korean publication 10-2011-0000945 teach one or more features related to the ‘514 patent.
Telephone Numbers for reexamination inquiries:
Central Reexam Unit (CRU) (571) 272-7705Reexamination Facsimile Transmission No. (571) 273-9900
Future Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRENCE R TILL whose telephone number is (571)272-1280. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday and every other Friday 6:45-4:15 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Engle can be reached on 571-272-6660. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-9900.
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.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Reexamination Legal Advisor or Examiner, or as to the status of this proceeding, should be directed to the Central Reexamination Unit at telephone number (571) 272-7705.
All correspondence relating to this reissue proceeding should be directed as follows:
By Patent Center:
https://patentcenter.uspto.gov
By U.S. Postal Service Mail to:
Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam
ATTN: Central Reexamination Unit
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-9900
Central Reexamination Unit
By hand to: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany St.
Alexandria, VA 22314
/TERRENCE R TILL/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees: /Laura Davison/ and /Patricia L Engle/
Laura Davison Patricia L. Engle
Reexam Specialist Supervisory Reexam Specialist
AU 3993 AU 3993