DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 3, a Japanese symbol is in the drawing; this needs to be corrected as only English or symbols from another customary alphabet (such as Greek for angles and wavelengths) is used. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(2). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1-4 and 7-9, the examiner recommends changing the phrase “as a reference” (claims 1-2 and 7-9) or “the reference” (claims 3-4) to “as a reference angle” or “the reference angle” to make it more clear, and consistent with the specification, that the reference set forth in each claim is a reference angle. As an example, and notwithstanding the additional issue set forth below under 35 USC 112(b), claim 1 would, in this recommendation be amended to read “with an angle at which brightness in the container is most uniform as a reference angle”.
Further regarding claim 7, in lines 9-10 of the claim, the phrase “a first end portion side of a container filled with the liquid” should be amended to read “a first end portion side of the container filled with the liquid”, as “a container” is already recited in line 8 of the claim.
Further regarding claim 9, in lines 6-7 of the claim, the phrase “an end portion side of a container filled with the liquid” should be amended to read “an end portion side of the container filled with the liquid”, as “a container” is already recited in lines 5-6 of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-9 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “wherein the first illuminator is disposed in a same direction as a camera configured to acquire image data indicating a state of the liquid, as viewed from the container” in lines 7-10 of the claim. The language that makes the limitation indefinite is that the first illuminator is disposed “in a same direction” as the camera. While it is clear from the instant specification that the first illuminator 400 and the camera 300 are disposed on the same side of the container (see Fig. 1), the first illuminator and the camera are not in the same direction as each other, as being in the same direction would require the first illuminator and camera to be on the same line stretching from the container, through the first illuminator, and to the camera. Instead, the first illuminator and the camera would be disposed in different directions, even when viewed from the container, as, when taking the x-axis as the left-right direction of the image, and the z-axis as the up-down direction of the image, the first illuminator would be seen, as viewed from the container, to be on an xz-axis direction, while the camera would be solely on the x-axis direction. To overcome this rejection, the examiner recommends amending the limitation to recite that the first illuminator and the camera are disposed on the same side of the container.
The term “most” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “most” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In the instant case, the limitation at issue regards an angle at which brightness in the container is “most uniform” as a reference. The examiner turns to the specification to find a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree as to what “most uniform” entails; however, the specification does not appear to provide that standard. The specification only repeats the language of the claim, that the angle at which the brightness in the container is “most” uniform is set as the reference (see paragraphs 0007-0010, 0022, and 0024, for example). What makes the brightness “most” uniform? What if there are multiple angles at which the brightness is “most uniform”? Clarification as to what degree represents “most uniform” is required. For purposes of examination, without knowing the degree to makes the brightness “most uniform” for setting the reference angle, the examiner will interpret this limitation to be the initial or default location of the illuminator with regards to the container.
As for claim 2, the claim recites “wherein the second illuminator is disposed in the same direction as the camera, as viewed from the container” in lines 6-7 of the claim. In a similar way to claim 1, the language that makes the limitation indefinite is that the illuminator is disposed “in the same direction” as the camera. While it is clear from the instant specification that the second illuminator 405 and the camera 300 are disposed on the same side of the container (see Fig. 1), the second illuminator and the camera are not in the same direction as each other, as being in the same direction would require the second illuminator and camera to be on the same line stretching from the container, through the illuminator, and to the camera. Instead, the second illuminator and the camera would be disposed in different directions, even when viewed from the container, as, when taking the x-axis as the left-right direction of the image, and the z-axis as the up-down direction of the image, the second illuminator would be seen, as viewed from the container, to be on an xz-axis direction, while the camera would be solely on the x-axis direction. To overcome this rejection, the examiner recommends amending the limitation to recite that the second illuminator and the camera are disposed on the same side of the container.
The term “most” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “most” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In the instant case, the limitation at issue regards an angle at which brightness in the container is “most uniform” as a reference. The examiner turns to the specification to find a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree as to what “most uniform” entails; however, the specification does not appear to provide that standard. The specification only repeats the language of the claim, that the angle at which the brightness in the container is “most” uniform is set as the reference (see paragraphs 0007-0010, 0022, and 0024, for example). What makes the brightness “most” uniform? What if there are multiple angles at which the brightness is “most uniform”? Clarification as to what degree represents “most uniform” is required. For purposes of examination, without knowing the degree to makes the brightness “most uniform” for setting the reference angle, the examiner will interpret this limitation to be the initial or default location of the illuminator with regards to the container.
As for claim 3, the claim recites that the first illuminator is configured to emit light to the liquid “from a position where a center axis passing through a center of the container is tilted”. The language at issue here is the definition of “a center axis passing through a center of the container”, as the container, as seen in Fig. 1, has two center axes. The first center axis is axis AXC, and the second center axis is the axis represented by the line passing through camera 300 and second motor 540. As a result, which “center axis passing through a center of the container” is being referred to by the claim? Clarification is required.
Further regarding claim 3, the phrase “in a vertical direction perpendicular to the center axis” is indefinite, as without knowing which axis “the center axis” represents, one having ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain what “a vertical direction perpendicular to” that center axis is.
For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider the center axis for both limitations to be center axis AXC as suggested by paragraph 0030 of the specification.
As for claim 5, the claim recites, in line 8 of the claim, that the processor executes instructions to “output the observation target object”. However, this language is unclear, as it is not clear as to how the processor can output the observation target object itself when the target object is contained in the liquid inside the container of the inspection apparatus. Is the limitation supposed to represent outputting information or data about the observation target object? Is it identifying the observation target object, or characteristics of the target object? The examiner recommends amending the limitation to indicate that the processor is outputting information about the object or identifying the object rather than stating that it is “output[ting] the observation target object”.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on at least claim 1, thereby containing all the limitations of the claims on which they depend.
The term “most” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “most” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In the instant case, the limitation at issue regards an angle at which brightness in the container is “most uniform” as a reference. The examiner turns to the specification to find a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree as to what “most uniform” entails; however, the specification does not appear to provide that standard. The specification only repeats the language of the claim, that the angle at which the brightness in the container is “most” uniform is set as the reference (see paragraphs 0007-0010, 0022, and 0024, for example). What makes the brightness “most” uniform? What if there are multiple angles at which the brightness is “most uniform”? Clarification as to what degree represents “most uniform” is required. For purposes of examination, without knowing the degree to makes the brightness “most uniform” for setting the reference angle, the examiner will interpret this limitation to be the initial or default location of the illuminator with regards to the container.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “wherein the first illuminator is disposed in a same direction as a camera configured to acquire image data indicating a state of the liquid, as viewed from the container” in lines 13-15 of the claim. The language that makes the limitation indefinite is that the first illuminator is disposed “in a same direction” as the camera. While it is clear from the instant specification that the first illuminator 400 and the camera 300 are disposed on the same side of the container (see Fig. 1), the first illuminator and the camera are not in the same direction as each other, as being in the same direction would require the first illuminator and camera to be on the same line stretching from the container, through the first illuminator, and to the camera. Instead, the first illuminator and the camera would be disposed in different directions, even when viewed from the container, as, when taking the x-axis as the left-right direction of the image, and the z-axis as the up-down direction of the image, the first illuminator would be seen, as viewed from the container, to be on an xz-axis direction, while the camera would be solely on the x-axis direction. To overcome this rejection, the examiner recommends amending the limitation to recite that the first illuminator and the camera are disposed on the same side of the container.
The term “most” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “most” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In the instant case, the limitation at issue regards an angle at which brightness in the container is “most uniform” as a reference. The examiner turns to the specification to find a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree as to what “most uniform” entails; however, the specification does not appear to provide that standard. The specification only repeats the language of the claim, that the angle at which the brightness in the container is “most” uniform is set as the reference (see paragraphs 0007-0010, 0022, and 0024, for example). What makes the brightness “most” uniform? What if there are multiple angles at which the brightness is “most uniform”? Clarification as to what degree represents “most uniform” is required. For purposes of examination, without knowing the degree to makes the brightness “most uniform” for setting the reference angle, the examiner will interpret this limitation to be the initial or default location of the illuminator with regards to the container.
As for claim 8, the claim recites “wherein the second illuminator is disposed in the same direction as the camera, as viewed from the container” in lines 11-13 of the claim. In a similar way to claim 1, the language that makes the limitation indefinite is that the illuminator is disposed “in the same direction” as the camera. While it is clear from the instant specification that the second illuminator 405 and the camera 300 are disposed on the same side of the container (see Fig. 1), the second illuminator and the camera are not in the same direction as each other, as being in the same direction would require the second illuminator and camera to be on the same line stretching from the container, through the illuminator, and to the camera. Instead, the second illuminator and the camera would be disposed in different directions, even when viewed from the container, as, when taking the x-axis as the left-right direction of the image, and the z-axis as the up-down direction of the image, the second illuminator would be seen, as viewed from the container, to be on an xz-axis direction, while the camera would be solely on the x-axis direction. To overcome this rejection, the examiner recommends amending the limitation to recite that the second illuminator and the camera are disposed on the same side of the container.
The term “most” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “most” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In the instant case, the limitation at issue regards an angle at which brightness in the container is “most uniform” as a reference. The examiner turns to the specification to find a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree as to what “most uniform” entails; however, the specification does not appear to provide that standard. The specification only repeats the language of the claim, that the angle at which the brightness in the container is “most” uniform is set as the reference (see paragraphs 0007-0010, 0022, and 0024, for example). What makes the brightness “most” uniform? What if there are multiple angles at which the brightness is “most uniform”? Clarification as to what degree represents “most uniform” is required. For purposes of examination, without knowing the degree to makes the brightness “most uniform” for setting the reference angle, the examiner will interpret this limitation to be the initial or default location of the illuminator with regards to the container.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “wherein the illuminator is disposed in a same direction as a camera configured to acquire image data indicating a state of the liquid, as viewed from the container” in lines 9-11 of the claim. The language that makes the limitation indefinite is that the illuminator is disposed “in a same direction” as the camera. While it is clear from the instant specification that the illuminator 400 and the camera 300 are disposed on the same side of the container (see Fig. 1), the illuminator and the camera are not in the same direction as each other, as being in the same direction would require the illuminator and camera to be on the same line stretching from the container, through the illuminator, and to the camera. Instead, the illuminator and the camera would be disposed in different directions, even when viewed from the container, as, when taking the x-axis as the left-right direction of the image, and the z-axis as the up-down direction of the image, the illuminator would be seen, as viewed from the container, to be on an xz-axis direction, while the camera would be solely on the x-axis direction. To overcome this rejection, the examiner recommends amending the limitation to recite that the illuminator and the camera are disposed on the same side of the container.
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)(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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yachida et al (2024/0201102).
The applied reference has a common inventor and applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Yachida (Figs. 1 and 7) discloses an inspection apparatus 100 comprising a gripper 210 (see paragraph 0023) configured to grip a container 400 filled with a liquid 410 (see paragraph 0022), and a first illuminator 250 configured to emit first light to the liquid from a first end portion side of the container in a longitudinal direction (see Fig. 1, showing the location of illuminator 250 at a first end portion side of the container in a longitudinal direction) while changing an incidence angle of the first light (see steps S102-S104, which states imaging begins (see paragraph 0059) and then the container is rotated around the second and first rotation axis as in paragraphs 0060-0063; this will change an incidence angle of the first light by movement of the container), wherein the first illuminator is disposed in a same direction as a camera 300 configured to acquire image data indicating a state of the liquid (see the abstract and paragraph 0019 for obtaining image data indicating a state of the liquid), as viewed from the container (see Fig. 1, as the examiner interprets “is disposed in a same direction as viewed from the container” to mean the first illuminator and the camera are on the same side of the container), and wherein the first illuminator is configured to continuously change the incidence angle of the first light emitted from the first illuminator (the examiner considers the motion of the container discussed above to meet the limitation that the illuminator is configured to continuously change the incidence angle; see also the abstract, which states that the illuminator is installed to emit light onto the liquid from a position where a center axis passing through a center of the container is tilted by any angle of 0 to 40 degrees) with an angle at which brightness in the container is most uniform as a reference (as noted above, this angle is the default installation angle of the illuminator so that light is able to reflect off the liquid to the camera; see paragraph 0047 for example).
As for claim 2, Yachida discloses a second illuminator 260 configured to emit second light to the liquid from a second end portion side of the container in the longitudinal direction (see Fig. 1, showing the location of illuminator 260 at a second end portion side of the container in a longitudinal direction) while changing an incidence angle of the second light (see steps S102-S104, which states imaging begins (see paragraph 0059) and then the container is rotated around the second and first rotation axis as in paragraphs 0060-0063; this will change an incidence angle of the first light by movement of the container), wherein the second illuminator is disposed in the same direction as the camera as viewed from the container (see Fig. 1, as the examiner interprets “is disposed in a same direction as viewed from the container” to mean the second illuminator and the camera are on the same side of the container), and wherein the second illuminator is configured to continuously change the incidence angle of the second light emitted from the second illuminator (the examiner considers the motion of the container discussed above to meet the limitation that the illuminator is configured to continuously change the incidence angle; see also the abstract, which states that the illuminator is installed to emit light onto the liquid from a position where a center axis passing through a center of the container is tilted by any angle of 0 to 40 degrees) with an angle at which brightness in the container is most uniform as a reference (as noted above, this angle is the default installation angle of the illuminator so that light is able to reflect off the liquid to the camera; see paragraph 0047 for example).
As for claim 3, Yachida discloses that the first illuminator is configured to emit the first light to the liquid from a position (see the position of illuminator 250 in Fig. 1) where a center axis passing through a center of the container (the examiner interprets a center axis in this case to be the first rotation axis as labeled in Fig. 1) is tilted by a freely selected value with respect to the reference in a vertical direction perpendicular to the center axis (see the control of the angles of the rotation of the container 400 in Fig. 4; as the illuminator is stationary, the light will be emitted as the container tilts with regards to the initial center axis).
As for claim 4, Yachida discloses that the first illuminator is configured to emit the first light while continuously changing the incidence of angle of the first light at -20 to +20 degrees with respect to the reference (the examiner interprets “where a center axis passing through a center of the container is tilted by any angle of 0 degrees or more and 40 degrees or less” in the abstract to meet this limitation, with the reference being the default installation angle of the illuminator so that light is able to reflect off the liquid to the camera; see paragraph 0047 for example), and wherein the camera is configured to acquire the image data indicating a state of an observation target object in the liquid during emission of the first light (see paragraph 0019).
Regarding claim 7, Yachida (Figs. 1 and 7) discloses a control device 240 comprising a memory configured to store instructions and a processor configured to execute the instructions (see paragraph 0033 for the memory and processor limitations) to send a command to continuously change an incidence angle (see steps S102-S104, which states imaging begins (see paragraph 0059) and then the container is rotated around the second and first rotation axis as in paragraphs 0060-0063; this will continuously change an incidence angle of the first light by movement of the container; see also paragraph 0033, which states that the control device controls the rotation of the first and second rotors 220, 230 of the gripper 210) of first light emitted from a first illuminator 250 with an angle at which brightness in a container 400 is most uniform as a reference (as noted above, this angle is the default installation angle of the illuminator so that light is able to reflect off the liquid to the camera; see paragraph 0047 for example), the first light being emitted to a liquid 410 from a first end portion side of the container filled with the liquid in a longitudinal direction (see Fig. 1, showing the location of illuminator 250 at a first end portion side of the container in a longitudinal direction); and acquire image data indicating a state of the liquid (this is done using camera 300; see also the abstract and paragraph 0019), wherein the first illuminator is disposed in a same direction as a camera 300 configured to acquire the image data as viewed from the container (see Fig. 1, as the examiner interprets “is disposed in a same direction as viewed from the container” to mean the first illuminator and the camera are on the same side of the container).
As for claim 8, Yachida discloses that the processor is configured to execute the instructions to send a command to continuously change an incidence angle of second light emitted from a second illuminator 260 (see steps S102-S104, which states imaging begins (see paragraph 0059) and then the container is rotated around the second and first rotation axis as in paragraphs 0060-0063; this will continuously change an incidence angle of the second light by movement of the container; see also paragraph 0033, which states that the control device controls the rotation of the first and second rotors 220, 230 of the gripper 210) with an angle at which brightness in the container is most uniform as a reference (as noted above, this angle is the default installation angle of the illuminator so that light is able to reflect off the liquid to the camera; see paragraph 0047 for example), the second illuminator emitting the second light to the liquid from the second end portion side of the container in the longitudinal direction (see Fig. 1, showing the location of illuminator 260 at a second end portion side of the container in a longitudinal direction), and wherein the second illuminator is disposed in the same direction as the camera as viewed from the container (see Fig. 1, as the examiner interprets “is disposed in a same direction as viewed from the container” to mean the second illuminator and the camera are on the same side of the container).
Regarding claim 9, Yachida (Figs. 1 and 7) discloses an inspection method comprising continuously changing an incidence angle (see steps S102-S104, which states imaging begins (see paragraph 0059) and then the container is rotated around the second and first rotation axis as in paragraphs 0060-0063; this will continuously change an incidence angle of the first light by movement of the container) of light emitted from an illuminator 250 with an angle at which brightness in a container 400 is most uniform as a reference, the light being emitted to a liquid 410 from an end portion side of the container filled with the liquid in a longitudinal direction (see Fig. 1, showing the location of illuminator 250 at a first end portion side of the container in a longitudinal direction); and acquiring image data indicating a state of the liquid (this is done using camera 300; see also the abstract and paragraph 0019), wherein the illuminator is disposed in a same direction as a camera 300 that acquires the image data as viewed from the container (see Fig. 1, as the examiner interprets “is disposed in a same direction as viewed from the container” to mean the first illuminator and the camera are on the same side of the container).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 5, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the further limitation of claim 4, further comprising a first memory configured to store first instructions and a first processor configured to execute the first instructions to identify the observation target object moving for a certain time and the observation target object being stationary from the image data, and output information about observation target object, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
With further regard to the above claim, Yachida discloses that the inspection apparatus enables acquisition of image data for accurately detecting a foreign object in the fluid (see paragraph 0009). However, Yachida fails to explicitly disclose identifying that target as moving for a certain time and the target being stationary from the image data as claimed.
Additionally, US Pat. 5,694,221 to Knapp discloses a particle detection method and apparatus for detecting contaminating particles in sealed containers. In the background, Knapp discusses the ability to identify particles in the liquid that are in motion, and to distinguish the moving contaminating particles from stationary defects in the container (see Col. 2, lines 9-27). However, this teaching also fails to disclose identifying the target as moving for a certain time and the target being stationary from the image data as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR 100795286 discloses a defect detection apparatus where imaging unit 3 is installed to be rotatable so that the inclination angle with respect to the surface of semiconductor wafer 2 can be adjusted within a predetermined range, and can also be fixed at a desired position by an electrical or mechanical stopper (see Fig. 1 and the “Brief Description of the Drawings” opening paragraph). US 2016/0321796 to Dordoni et al. discloses a system for inspecting a glass container with a plurality of light sources 110, 112, 114 disposed on the opposite side of the glass container 102 from cameras 116, 118, 120 (see Fig. 2). US 2023/0154012 to Yachida et al. discloses a device that determines foreign matter contained in a container by imaging a liquid in the container between a plurality of illumination conditions (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 April 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights