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 .
Response to continuation request/amendments
The request for a continuation is acknowledged. For a continuation to be applied as per the MPEP, the application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior Applications, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or divisional. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq.
Filed amendments/remarks of 05/30/2025 has been received and made of record.
Claim 1 has been amended.
New claims 2-14 have been added.
Currently claims 1-14 are pending.
Please refer to the action below.
Examiner Notes
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. However, the claimed subject matter, not the specification, is the measure of the invention.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of US Patent 12107999, “7999”.
Instant Application 18887922 (“7922”)
Allowed Patent US 12107999 (“7999”)
1. (Currently Amended) An examination system configured to compare a scan image obtained by scanning a printed material with a reference image based on an examination setting and executes examination of the printed material, the examination system comprising: one or more controllers having one or more processors and one or more memories, the one or more controllers configured to cause the examination system to: set, as the examination setting, a first examination region for setting an execution target of examination of a first type and a second examination region for setting an execution target of examination of a second type different from the examination of the first type with respect to the reference image; and notify a warning based on overlap of the first examination region and the second examination region.
1. A printing system comprising: one or more controllers having one or more processors and one or more memories, the one or more controllers configured to cause the printing system to: print an image on a recording sheet, the image including a variable region where an image printed on a first page and an image printed on a second page differ and a fixed region where an image printed on the first page and an image printed on the second page are the same; read a printout printed by the printing and generate a scan image; display a reference image including at least the fixed region on a display unit; examine, as a first examination, the printout based on at least the fixed region of the scan image and the reference image; examine, as a second examination, data acquired from the printout based on data acquired from an image printed in the variable region of the scan image and reference data; set at least a first region to be examined by the first examination and a second region to be examined by the second examination in the reference image displayed on the display unit; and provide, in a case where the first region and the second region include an overlap region, a notification of overlap of the first region and the second region.
Regarding Instant independent claim 1 corresponding to respectively at least claim 1 of the allowed patent “7999”:
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. As at least claim 1 of the patent “7999” encompasses all the teachings of the instant claim 1.
It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since instant application claim 1 is at least anticipated and obvious by the above cited claim 1 of the reference patent.
As one skill in the art would further appreciate that the methods/systems of the patent “7999” comprises the means to generate scan data of the printout material and utilize the read image data as the reference image data for further executing examination of the printout material; and based on the alignment comparison of first examination region to be examined, as an execution target of examination of a first type examination being different than a second examination region to be examined as the examination of a second type different with respect to the reference image, the system is configured for notifying to a user of an overlap warning in a case where the system detects the set first examination region and the second examination region include an overlap region. Thereby it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of the instant claims to include wherein said examination setting and said notify warning according to further known methods to yield predictable results since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as said combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is either commonly available and understood in the art thereby a variation on already known art (See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Dependent claims 2-14 are also rejected as they failed to solve the above problem.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter of this application as currently claimed is unpatentable under the provisions of the nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection. Therefore, those claims are rejected as best understood by examiner as indicated in this office action above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-4, and 6-14 is/are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tsukamoto et al. (US 2020/0288030, A1) in view of Inose et al. (US 2015/0363138, A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tsukamoto teaches an examination system configured to compare a scan image obtained by scanning a printed material with a reference image based on an examination setting and executes examination of the printed material (Tsukamoto teaches an examination system 10 of at least in Figs. 14, 18 and para. 0070, 0104-0108, and 0113 comprising an image inspector 37 configured to set at least in Figs. 14, 18 an examination setting for executing examination of the printed material, the setting including a set first inspection target area (D) including a first inspection image region A and second inspection image region B of the inspection image of the printed material to be compared to a correct reference image second inspection target area (D) including a first inspection image region A and second inspection image region B),
the examination system 10 comprising:
one or more controllers 21 having one or more processors 26 and one or more memories 22 of Fig. 5,
the one or more controllers 21 configured to cause the examination system to:
set, as the examination setting, a first examination region for setting an execution target of examination of a first type and a second examination region for setting an execution target of examination of a second type different from the examination of the first type with respect to the reference image (Tsukamoto further teaches the at least image inspector 37 of at least in Figs. 14, 18 and para. 0070, 0104-0108, and 0113 further configured to set first examination target setting (D) as a first examination region of the inspection image for setting an execution target of examination of a first type corresponding to a second examination region of the correct/reference image as a setting execution target of examination of a second type different from the examination of the first type with respect to the correct/reference image which in a case may be a barcode examination type target or the like); and
notify overlap of the first examination region and the second examination region (in a case of a defect/abnormality detection of para. 0113 and Figs. 14, and 18, indicating an overlap between the compared first and second target regions, the system is setup to notify as cited “image inspector 37 determines as inspection abnormal and notifies the instruction unit 32 of the same (S139)” as a notify instruction or obviously notify warning based on a determined difference/defect further indicating in the art a detected overlap of the first examination region and the second examination region).
However, Tsukamoto is silent regarding the above lined-out items such as citing notify specifically said notify warning specifically based on said overlap of the first examination region and the second examination region.
Inose teaches at least in para. 0029, and 0048-0050 an image inspection method of variable print contents configured for generating an actual result image from an obtained scan image from scanning a printed material, the result image is used as a reference image to be compared a currently printed image, in a case as illustrated in at least para. 0029 a difference error or overlap occurs or detected between the compared result image and the print image to send a warning sound and display notification for informing of the error occurrence. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tsukamoto in view of Inose to include wherein said notify warning specifically based on said overlap of the first examination region and the second examination region, as discussed above, as Tsukamoto in view of Inose are in the same of endeavor of providing variable printing and performing variable printing inspection methods and systems, where Inose’s combination of output sound warning notification and detection error occurrence of the compared images further complements the providing and performing variable printing inspection methods and systems of Tsukamoto, in a sense that when combined with the detected error differences of the compared images in addition to output sound warning notification of Inose, it enables the methods and systems of Tsukamoto to further provide accurate variable printing capable of printing while reducing a frequency of errors, according to further known methods to yield predictable results since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as said combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is either commonly available and understood in the art thereby a variation on already known art (See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Regarding claim 2 (according to claim 1), Tsukamoto further teaches wherein comprising a display configured to display the reference image (Figs. 1-2, 8-10, 14-24 and para. 0104-0108 further teaches a case where the original image and/or the scan image may refer as the display reference image);
wherein the one or more controllers are configured to cause the examination system to:
set the first examination region and the second examination region to the reference image displayed by the display (Figs. 1-2, 8-10, 14-24 and para. 0104-0108 further teaches the setting of at least set the first examination region (A), (D) or (B) and the second examination region (E), (F), (K) to the reference image displayed by the display); and
notify the
However, Tsukamoto is silent regarding citing notify specifically said notify the warning via the display based on overlap of the first examination region and the second examination region.
Inose further teaches at least in para. 0029, and 0048-0050 an image inspection method of variable print contents configured for generating in a case of a difference error or overlap occurs or detected between the compared result image and the print image to send a warning sound and display notification for informing of the error occurrence. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tsukamoto in view of Inose to include wherein said notify the warning via the display based on overlap of the first examination region and the second examination region, as discussed above, as Tsukamoto in view of Inose are in the same of endeavor of providing variable printing and performing variable printing inspection methods and systems, where Inose’s combination of output sound warning notification and detection error occurrence of the compared images further complements the providing and performing variable printing inspection methods and systems of Tsukamoto, in a sense that when combined with the detected error differences of the compared images in addition to output sound warning notification of Inose, it enables the methods and systems of Tsukamoto to further provide accurate variable printing capable of printing while reducing a frequency of errors, according to further known methods to yield predictable results since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as said combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is either commonly available and understood in the art thereby a variation on already known art (See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Regarding claim 3 (according to claim 1), Tsukamoto further teaches wherein further comprising a display configured to display the reference image (Figs. 1-2, 8-10, 14-24 and para. 0104-0108 further teaches a case where the original image and/or the scan image may refer as the display reference image);
wherein the one or more controllers are configured to cause the examination system to:
set the first examination region and the second examination region to the reference image displayed as first display of the display (Figs. 1-2, 8-10, 14-24 and para. 0104-0108 further teaches the setting of at least set the first examination region (A), (D) or (B) and the second examination region (E), (F), (K) to the reference image displayed by the display); and
notify the
However, Tsukamoto is silent regarding citing notify specifically said notify the warning via second display of the display based on overlap of the first examination region and the second examination region.
Inose further teaches at least in para. 0029, and 0048-0050 an image inspection method of variable print contents configured for generating in a case of a difference error or overlap occurs or detected between the compared result image and the print image to send a warning sound and sending display notification to a display portion of the display unit for informing of the error occurrence, which unit may obviously be one of obviously second display of the display. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tsukamoto in view of Inose to include wherein said notify warning via second display of the display based on overlap of the first examination region and the second examination region, as discussed above, as Tsukamoto in view of Inose are in the same of endeavor of providing variable printing and performing variable printing inspection methods and systems, where Inose’s combination of output sound warning notification and detection error occurrence of the compared images further complements the providing and performing variable printing inspection methods and systems of Tsukamoto, in a sense that when combined with the detected error differences of the compared images in addition to output sound warning notification of Inose, it enables the methods and systems of Tsukamoto to further provide accurate variable printing capable of printing while reducing a frequency of errors, according to further known methods to yield predictable results since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as said combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is either commonly available and understood in the art thereby a variation on already known art (See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Regarding claim 4 (according to claim 1), Tsukamoto is silent regarding wherein in a case where the first examination region and the second examination region overlap each other, the one or more controllers are configured to cause the examination system to display the warning based on receiving completion of an examination region to the reference image.
Inose further teaches at least in para. 0029, and 0048-0050 the variable print inspection including compared detection of said first examination region and the second examination region overlap each other, the one or more controllers are configured to cause the examination system to display further in at least para. 0050 the warning based on obviously receiving completion of an examination region to the reference image. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tsukamoto in view of Inose to include wherein said first examination region and the second examination region overlap each other, the one or more controllers are configured to cause the examination system to display the warning based on receiving completion of an examination region to the reference image, as discussed above, as Tsukamoto in view of Inose are in the same of endeavor of providing variable printing and performing variable printing inspection methods and systems, where Inose’s combination of output sound warning notification and detection error occurrence of the compared images further complements the providing and performing variable printing inspection methods and systems of Tsukamoto, in a sense that when combined with the detected error differences of the compared images in addition to output sound warning notification of Inose, it enables the methods and systems of Tsukamoto to further provide accurate variable printing capable of printing while reducing a frequency of errors, according to further known methods to yield predictable results since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as said combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is either commonly available and understood in the art thereby a variation on already known art (See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Regarding claim 6 (according to claim 1), Tsukamoto further teaches wherein further comprising a display configured to display the reference image (Figs. 1-2, 8-10, 14-24 further illustrates said display configured to display the reference image);
wherein the one or more controllers are configured to cause the examination system to display a warning mark on the display as the warning.
However, Tsukamoto is silent regarding citing notify specifically wherein the one or more controllers are configured to cause the examination system to display a warning mark on the display as the warning.
Inose further teaches in at least para. 0025, 0029, 0032 and 0048-0050 the performed image inspection comparison, wherein the one or more controllers as implied further in at least para. 0050 are configured to cause the examination system to display a warning indication of the comparison result on the display as the warning, said warning indication may obviously further comprises in the art said warning mark of the comparison overlap or differences between the reference image and the read image. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tsukamoto in view of Inose to include wherein said one or more controllers are configured to cause the examination system to display a warning mark on the display as the warning, as discussed above, as Tsukamoto in view of Inose are in the same of endeavor of providing variable printing and performing variable printing inspection methods and systems, where Inose’s combination of output sound warning notification and detection error occurrence of the compared images further complements the providing and performing variable printing inspection methods and systems of Tsukamoto, in a sense that when combined with the detected error differences of the compared images in addition to output sound warning notification of Inose, it enables the methods and systems of Tsukamoto to further provide accurate variable printing capable of printing while reducing a frequency of errors, according to further known methods to yield predictable results since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as said combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is either commonly available and understood in the art thereby a variation on already known art (See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Regarding claim 7 (according to claim 1), Tsukamoto is silent regarding wherein the one or more controllers are configured to cause the examination system to notify a sound or a voice as the warning.
Inose further teaches at least in para. 0048-0050 the outputting, based on an image examination result, a sound or a voice as the warning to a user of the examination result. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tsukamoto in view of Inose to include wherein said one or more controllers are configured to cause the examination system to notify a sound or a voice as the warning, as discussed above, as Tsukamoto in view of Inose are in the same of endeavor of providing variable printing and performing variable printing inspection methods and systems, where Inose’s combination of output sound warning notification and detection error occurrence of the compared images further complements the providing and performing variable printing inspection methods and systems of Tsukamoto, in a sense that when combined with the detected error differences of the compared images in addition to output sound warning notification of Inose, it enables the methods and systems of Tsukamoto to further provide accurate variable printing capable of printing while reducing a frequency of errors, according to further known methods to yield predictable results since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as said combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is either commonly available and understood in the art thereby a variation on already known art (See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Regarding claim 8 (according to claim 1), Tsukamoto is silent regarding wherein the one or more controllers are configured to cause the examination system to emit a sound as the warning.
Inose further teaches at least in para. 0048-0050 the outputting, based on an image examination result, a sound or a voice as the warning to a user of the examination result. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tsukamoto in view of Inose to include wherein said one or more controllers are configured to cause the examination system to emit a sound as the warning, as discussed above, as Tsukamoto in view of Inose are in the same of endeavor of providing variable printing and performing variable printing inspection methods and systems, where Inose’s combination of output sound warning notification and detection error occurrence of the compared images further complements the providing and performing variable printing inspection methods and systems of Tsukamoto, in a sense that when combined with the detected error differences of the compared images in addition to output sound warning notification of Inose, it enables the methods and systems of Tsukamoto to further provide accurate variable printing capable of printing while reducing a frequency of errors, according to further known methods to yield predictable results since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as said combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is either commonly available and understood in the art thereby a variation on already known art (See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Regarding claim 9 (according to claim 1), Tsukamoto further teaches wherein in a case where the printed material includes a plurality of pages, the one or more controllers are configured to cause the examination system to set the first examination region and the second examination region to each of pages of reference images of the plurality of pages corresponding to the printed material (Figs. 1-2, 8-10, 14-24 further illustrates said case where the printed material includes a plurality of pages, the one or more controllers are configured to cause the examination system to set the first examination region and the second examination region to each of pages of reference images of the plurality of pages corresponding to the printed material).
Regarding claim 10 (according to claim 1), Tsukamoto further teaches wherein the examination of the first type is examination of comparing a picture of the reference image and a picture of the scan image, and the examination of the second type is examination of checking whether data is readable from the execution target of the examination of the second type in the scan image (the examination of further Figs. 1-2, 8-10, 14-24 and para. 0070, 0104-0108 and 0113 further comprises said first type examination of comparing a picture of the reference image and a picture of the scan image, and the examination in a case of the barcode or the second type is examination of checking obviously whether barcode data is readable from the execution target of the examination of the second type in the scan image).
Regarding claim 11 (according to claim 1), Tsukamoto further teaches wherein the one or more controllers are configured to cause the examination system to store reference data to be used for the examination of the second type (the examination process of further Figs. 1-2, 8-10, 14-24 and para. 0070 obviously comprises in the art examination system to store reference data to be used for the examination of the second type); and
wherein the examination of the first type is examination of comparing a picture of the reference image and a picture of the scan image (the examination process of further Figs. 1-2, 8-10, 14-24); and
the examination of the second type is examination of reading data from the execution target of the examination of the second type in the scan image and comparing the read data and the reference data (as further illustrated in at least Figs. 1-2, 8-10, 14-24).
Regarding claim 12 (according to claim 1), Tsukamoto further teaches wherein further comprising:
an image forming unit configured to form an image on a sheet (image forming apparatus 10 of further Fig. 4 comprises said image forming unit);
a conveyance unit configured to convey the sheet on which the image is formed by the image forming unit (image forming apparatus 10 of further Fig. 4 comprises said conveyance unit); and
an image reading unit configured to read the image on the sheet conveyed by the conveyance unit (image forming apparatus 10 of further Fig. 4 comprises said image reading unit).
Regarding claim 13 (according to claim 1), Tsukamoto further teaches wherein the reference image is a scan image obtained by scanning another printed material (the correct result image of further para. 0070, 0104-0108, and 0113 comprises one of reference image indicative of said scan image obtained by scanning another printed material).
Regarding claim 14 (according to claim 1), Tsukamoto further teaches wherein the reference image is image data on which the one or more controllers have performed RIP processing (the reference image of at least para. 0070 further comprises as understood in the art image data on which said one or more controllers may have obviously performed RIP processing).
Claims Standings
Claim 5 in regards to the prior arts of Tsukamoto in view of Inose is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if all outstanding rejections are overcome. Tsukamoto in view of Inose as currently understood appear to be silent regarding wherein: claim 5. (New) The examination system according to claim 1, wherein before receiving completion of an examination region to the reference image, the one or more controllers are configured to cause the examination system to display the warning according to overlap of the first examination region and the second examination region.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCELLUS AUGUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3384. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 5 PM.
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, BENNY TIEU can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/MARCELLUS J AUGUSTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682 06/29/2026
Prosecution Insights