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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/03/2025 was filed before the mailing date of this office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an imaging unit”, “a signal processing unit” and “an output unit” in claims 1 and 8, “a first storage unit” in claim 2, “a second storage unit” in claim 3, “a checking processing unit” in claim 8 and “a storage unit” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 limitation (claim 1) “An imaging apparatus comprising: an imaging unit, in which a plurality of pixels is two-dimensionally aligned, configured to capture an image; a signal processing unit configured to execute signal processing for image data based on an output of the imaging unit; and an output unit, which is not directly connected to the imaging unit, configured to be able to output only a signal processing result of the signal processing to the outside, wherein the signal processing unit deletes the image data after the signal processing.” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraph [0002] of the Specification discloses the imaging unit and the image processing unit are arranged in a single chip, disclosing the required structure to perform the respective functions. However, the Specification does not provide any structure for the claimed “an output unit” to perform the claimed function. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected, together with the dependent claims 2-7, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation (claim 8) “An imaging apparatus comprising: an imaging unit, in which a plurality of pixels is two-dimensionally aligned, configured to capture an image; a signal processing unit configured to execute signal processing for image data based on an output of the imaging unit; an output unit configured to be able to output a signal processing result of the signal processing to the outside; and a checking processing unit configured to execute a checking process of checking that the image data is not included in an output of the signal processing unit before the signal processing.” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraph [0002] of the Specification discloses the imaging unit and the image processing unit are arranged in a single chip, disclosing the required structure to perform the respective functions. However, the Specification does not provide any structure for the claimed “an output unit” and “a checking processing unit” to perform the respective claimed functions. Therefore, claim 8 is indefinite and is rejected, together with the dependent claims 9-18, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 19-20 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.
Claim 19 recites: “A data output method comprising deleting image data after signal processing using an imaging apparatus including: an imaging unit, in which a plurality of pixels is two-dimensionally aligned, configured to capture an image; a signal processing unit configured to execute the signal processing for the image data based on an output of the imaging unit; and an output unit, which is not directly connected to the imaging unit, configured to be able to output only a signal processing result of the signal processing to the outside.”, is directed to both process and product, and a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Therefore, claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph as being indefinite.
Claims 2-3 and 13 recite the limitations “a first storage unit configured to be temporarily written data relating to the signal processing,”, “a second storage unit configured to be stored a program for executing the signal processing,” and “a storage unit configured to be stored a second program”, respectively. It is not clear what the claimed functions “to be temporarily written data”, “to be stored a program” and “to be stored a second program” perform. Therefore, claims 2-4 and 13 are rejected as being indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-PGPUB No. 2017/0353679 A1 to Negishi, and further in view of US-PGPUB No. 2017/0318166 A1 to Wall warner et al. (hereinafter “Wall Warner”)
Regarding claim 1:
Negishi Discloses:
An imaging apparatus (¶09: “FIG. 1 … a system configuration of an imaging apparatus …”) comprising:
an imaging unit (see Fig. 1, Imaging element 102), in which a plurality of pixels is two-dimensionally aligned (¶28: “an imaging apparatus using the imaging element in which the plurality of pixel units are arranged in a two-dimensional array”), configured to capture an image (¶30: “The imaging element 102 performs an imaging operation such as exposing, signal reading, resetting, or the like in accordance with the control signal from the control calculation unit 103, and outputs a corresponding image signal.”) ;
a signal processing unit (see Fig. 1, Video Signal Processing Unit 104) configured to execute signal processing for image data based on an output of the imaging unit (¶30: “A video signal processing unit 104 acquires a image signal from the imaging element 102 and outputs a video signal by performing various types of signal processing …”); and
an output unit (see Fig. 1, Picture Display Unit 110), which is not directly connected to the imaging unit, configured to be able to output only a signal processing result of the signal processing to the outside (¶35: “The image display unit 110 generates a signal to be displayed on the display device from a video signal supplied from the control calculation unit 103, supplies the signal to the display device, and displays the image on a screen.”),
However, Negishi does not explicitly disclose the following limitations taught by Wall warner:
wherein the signal processing unit deletes the image data after the signal processing (Wall Warner, ¶18: “… the mobile device 101 may have control code configured to delete the captured image and data upon receiving a notification that the image has been successfully uploaded and/or accepted.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Negishi to incorporate the functionality of the mobile device implementing a control code configured to delete an image data upon receiving a notification that the image has been successfully uploaded and/or accepted, as disclosed by Wall Warner, such modification would enable the system to protect potentially sensitive or private information by leaving no personal information on an imaging device.
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Negishi and Wall Warner discloses:
The imaging apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a first storage unit (Wall Warner, ¶18: “temporary memory of the mobile device”) configured to be temporarily written data relating to the signal processing (Wall Warner, ¶18: “… the captured image may be removed from … temporary memory of the mobile device 101,”),
wherein the signal processing unit deletes the image data written in the first storage unit for the signal processing after the signal processing (Wall Warner, ¶18: “… the mobile device 101 may have control code configured to delete the captured image and data upon receiving a notification that the image has been successfully uploaded and/or accepted.”).
The same motivation which is applied to claim 1 with respect to Wall Warner applies to claim 2.
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Negishi and Wall Warner discloses:
The imaging apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising a second storage unit (Wall warner, ¶25: “A computer readable storage medium may be, … a read-only memory (ROM)”) configured to be stored a program for executing the signal processing (Wall Warner, ¶30: “computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer readable medium”), wherein the second storage unit sets the program to be un-rewritable (Note: Data stored in a ROM is physically etched and un-rewritable).
The same motivation which is applied to claim 1 with respect to Wall Warner applies to claim 3.
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Negishi and Wall Warner discloses:
The imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the imaging unit and the signal processing unit are arranged inside of one chip (Negishi, ¶142: “… the pixel array section (an imaging unit) … and the signal processing unit … are mounted on an integrated circuit chip in the imaging element.”).
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Negishi and Wall Warner discloses:
The imaging apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the chip includes a first substrate and a second substrate that are bonded to each other (Negishi, ¶142: “in the case of a stacked imaging element, the imaging element has the configuration in which the second integrated circuit chip constituting the imaging unit is stacked on the first integrated circuit chip constituting the signal processing unit. ”, in view of ¶37: “The imaging element 102 includes, … a peripheral circuit unit around the pixel array unit 202 on a semiconductor substrate …”), wherein the first substrate includes the imaging unit, and wherein the second substrate includes the signal processing unit (Negishi, ¶142: “… the imaging element has the configuration in which the second integrated circuit chip constituting the imaging unit is stacked on the first integrated circuit chip constituting the signal processing unit. ”).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negishi, Wall Warner, and further in view of US-PGPUB No. 2021/0357751 A1 to Athreya et al. (hereinafter “Athreya”)
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Negishi and Wall Warner discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 3, but fails to explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Athreya:
wherein the program causes the signal processing using a neural network to be executable (Athreya, ¶43: “… the DNN 104 may be a convolutional neural network that is trained to perform image processing … audio processing … and/or other types of signal processing (e.g., voice activity detection, person identification with speech, sentiment analysis, sensory processing for emotion detection, and/or sensory processing to predict occurrence of events …).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of the combination of Negishi and Wall Warner to incorporate the functionality of the method for event-based processing using an output of a DNN trained for processing sensing data, as disclosed by Athreya, such modification would allow the system to include metadata in the signal processing output which enables identify a certain image processing occurrence.
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Negishi and Wall Warner discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Athreya:
wherein the signal processing unit executes recognition processing for the image data as the signal processing (Athreya, ¶43: “ the DNN 104 may be a convolutional neural network that is trained to perform … audio processing (voice recognition in an audio signal) …”) and outputs metadata of the image data as a recognition result of the recognition processing (Athreya, p -43: “The computing device 102 may provide 202 an output 114 of a DNN 104 trained for processing sensing data (e.g., visual data, audio data, etc.) to an SNN 106.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of the combination of Negishi and Wall Warner to incorporate the functionality of the method for event-based processing using an output of a DNN trained for processing sensing data, as disclosed by Athreya, such modification would allow the system to include metadata in the signal processing output which enables identify a certain image processing occurrence.
Claims 8-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negishi, and further in view of US-PGPUB No. 2001/0036316 A1 to Kunimasa et al. (hereinafter “Kunimasa”)
Regarding claim 8:
Negishi Discloses:
An imaging apparatus (¶09: “FIG. 1 … a system configuration of an imaging apparatus …”) comprising:
an imaging unit (see Fig. 1, Imaging element 102), in which a plurality of pixels is two-dimensionally aligned (¶28: “an imaging apparatus using the imaging element in which the plurality of pixel units are arranged in a two-dimensional array”), configured to capture an image (¶30: “The imaging element 102 performs an imaging operation such as exposing, signal reading, resetting, or the like in accordance with the control signal from the control calculation unit 103, and outputs a corresponding image signal.”);
a signal processing unit (see Fig. 1, Video Signal Processing Unit 104) configured to execute signal processing for image data based on an output of the imaging unit (¶30: “A video signal processing unit 104 acquires a image signal from the imaging element 102 and outputs a video signal by performing various types of signal processing …”);
an output unit (see Fig. 1, Picture Display Unit 110) configured to be able to output a signal processing result of the signal processing to the outside (¶35: “The image display unit 110 generates a signal to be displayed on the display device from a video signal supplied from the control calculation unit 103, supplies the signal to the display device, and displays the image on a screen.”);
However, Negishi does not explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Kunimasa:
and a checking processing unit (Kunimasa, see Fig. Recognition Determination Unit 20) configured to execute a checking process of checking that the image data is not included in an output of the signal processing unit before the signal processing (Kunimasa, ¶69: “The recognition determination unit receives the result of recognition processing including other types of rendering objects and finally judges whether the specific image is included or not. In case the recognition determination unit finally judges that the specific image is included, it instructs the output image data generation unit 14 to execute processing when the specific image exists.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Negishi to incorporate the functionality of the recognition determination unit to judge whether a specific image is included or not in a signal processing output, as disclosed by Kunimasa, such modification would enable the system to determine if a specific image is included in output image data.
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Negishi and Kunimasa discloses:
The imaging apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the signal processing unit executes the signal processing in a case in which a user is determined to be unable to acquire the image data from the output of the signal processing unit (Kunimasa, ¶43: “In case the synthetic probability P is smaller than the predetermined threshold TH1, it is judged that the specific image is not included and the processing is continued as it is.”).
The same motivation which is applied to claim 8 with respect to Kunimasa applies to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Negishi and Kunimasa discloses:
The imaging apparatus according to claim 9, wherein a first program used for executing the signal processing is loaded from the outside (Kunimasa, see Fig. 12, program 101 is loaded from external storage (storage media 111-114)), and wherein the checking processing unit executes the checking process for the first program (Kunimasa, ¶85: “… the program 101 is read from the computer and the image processing method according to the invention can be executed respectively by installing these storage media”).
The same motivation which is applied to claim 8 with respect to Kunimasa applies to claim 10.
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of Negishi and Kunimasa discloses:
The imaging apparatus according to claim 8, further comprising a storage unit configured to be stored a second program used for executing the checking process configured to be stored a program for executing the signal processing (Kunimasa, ¶83: “… a storage medium storing a computer program in case the image processing method according to the invention is implemented in the computer program.”), wherein the storage unit sets the second program to be un-rewritable (see Fig. 12, optical disk 112, which can be implemented as a read-only memory (un-rewritable)).
The same motivation which is applied to claim 8 with respect to Kunimasa applies to claim 13.
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of Negishi and Kunimasa discloses:
The imaging apparatus according to claim 8, wherein, in a case in which it is determined that a user is able to acquire the image data from the output of the signal processing unit, the signal processing unit stops the execution of the signal processing (Kunimasa, ¶43: “For the processing when the specific image exists, for example, the output of output image data is stopped, output image data to be blank one page and an image in which predetermined patterns are overlapped is output or output image data including a character string to be a message that printing is prohibited because the specific image exists can be generated.”).
The same motivation which is applied to claim 8 with respect to Kunimasa applies to claim 14.
Regarding claim 15:
The combination of Negishi and Kunimasa discloses:
The imaging apparatus according to claim 14, further comprising an alert generating unit (Kunimasa, see Fig. 1, recognition unit for a raster image 17) configured to generate alert information in a case in which it is determined that the image data is included in the output of the signal processing unit (Kunimasa, ¶49: “For processing when the specific image exists, … the whole page is blanked or as shown in FIG. 5B, a message that printing is prohibited can be formed.”).
The same motivation which is applied to claim 8 with respect to Kunimasa applies to claim 15.
Regarding claim 16:
The combination of Negishi ang Kunimasa discloses:
The imaging apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the output unit is not directly connected to the imaging unit (Negishi, see Fig. 1, Picture Display Unit 110 is not directly connected to Imaging Element 102).
Regarding claim 17:
The combination of Negishi ang Kunimasa discloses:
The imaging apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the imaging unit, the signal processing unit, and the checking processing unit are arranged inside of one chip (Negishi, ¶142: “… the pixel array section (an imaging unit) … and the signal processing unit … are mounted on an integrated circuit chip in the imaging element.”).
Regarding claim 18:
The combination of Negishi ang Kunimasa discloses:
The imaging apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the chip includes a first substrate and a second substrate that are bonded to each other (Negishi, ¶142: “in the case of a stacked imaging element, the imaging element has the configuration in which the second integrated circuit chip constituting the imaging unit is stacked on the first integrated circuit chip constituting the signal processing unit. ”, in view of ¶37: “The imaging element 102 includes, … a peripheral circuit unit around the pixel array unit 202 on a semiconductor substrate …”), wherein the first substrate includes the imaging unit, and wherein the second substrate includes the signal processing unit and the checking processing unit (Negishi, ¶142: “… the imaging element has the configuration in which the second integrated circuit chip constituting the imaging unit is stacked on the first integrated circuit chip constituting the signal processing unit. ”).
Regarding claims 19-20:
The combination of claims 19 and 20 recite substantially the same limitations as claim 8 in the form of a data output method to execute the corresponding functionality. Therefore, claims 19-20 are rejected by the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected independent base claim 8, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and overcoming the 112(b) rejections. Claim 12 is also objected based on its dependency on claim 11.
The following is the examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Negishi and Kunimasa discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 8, but fails to disclose the limitation “wherein the first program causes the signal processing using a neural network to be executable, and wherein the checking processing unit checks that a network structure of the neural network is a structure that is unable to output the image data.”.
Claim 12 is indicated as allowable subject matter based on its dependence on
claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Kubota et al. (US 2022/0312019 A1)- discloses a data processing device comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to: in a case where a compression level is designated based on a degree of influence of each block on a recognition result when a recognition process is performed on image data, generate compressed data by performing a compression process on the image data by using the compression level.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHIAS HABTEGEORGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1916. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
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, William R. Korzuch can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights