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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/31/2025. These drawings are not acceptable. Fewer than all objections listed in the non-final rejection mailed 07/08/2025 have been addressed. For example, separate views are still not separately labeled, arrow meaning remains unclear for numerous arrows, and shading still fails to conform to the standards set forth in 37 CFR 1.84(m). The replacement drawings have not been entered.
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the drawing objections listed in the non-final rejection mailed 07/08/2025 remain outstanding. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The abstract fails to mention a claimed information processing apparatus.
The abstract recites “is returned to ” in which the word “” appears as both underlined and stricken out. It is unclear whether the word is to be added or deleted. If deleted, then this markup is inconsistent with the immediately preceding version of the abstract.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The amended disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0028], the SPEC recites “The actual size of the manipulation face image 12a2 may be … larger than that of the display 11b (the display screen)”. It is unclear in what sense it would be possible for an “actual size” of a manipulation face image to be larger than a size of a display on which the manipulation face is displayed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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:
manipulation unit,
available manipulation unit,
control unit,
manipulation unit control unit,
contact manipulation detection unit,
judgment unit,
display manner change unit, and
manipulation face image display unit.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 and 4-17 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.
Independent claim 1 recites “a processor configured to execute a manipulation unit to be contact-manipulated by a user in a partial region of an obverse side of the display unit”. It is noted by the Examiner that a processor executes commands or software routines, but a processor does not execute a manipulation unit such as a deformable raised soft button and its equivalents.
Independent claim 1 recites “a manipulation face image including at least one manipulation image”. The relationship between a manipulation face image and a manipulation image is unclear. Furthermore, the difference, if any, between a manipulation face image and a manipulation image is unclear.
A similar recitation in independent claim 13 is similarly indefinite.
Independent claim 1 recites “the manipulation unit is formed in the partial region; or the partial region, in which the manipulation unit is formed, is returned to a state before formation of the manipulation unit; displaying the manipulation face image on the display screen”. It is unclear how many limitations are established by “or” as alternatives. The Examiner suggests -- the manipulation unit is formed in the partial region[[;]], or the partial region, in which the manipulation unit is formed, is returned to a state before formation of the manipulation unit; displaying the manipulation face image on the display screen-- to clarify two alternatives established by “or”, and to clarify which limitations are not presented in the alternative.
Claim 4 recites “if the manipulation face image moves in accordance with the contact manipulation of the user, and the manipulation image included in the manipulation face image is brought close to the manipulation unit;”. If these conditions are met, then what?
Claim 4 recites “in the deforming, the partial region such that the manipulation unit is formed in the partial region is deformed;”. The repeated presence of “is” obfuscates the meaning of this limitation. The Examiner suggests --in the deforming, [[the partial region such that the manipulation unit is formed in]] the partial region is deformed--.
Claim 4 recites “if the manipulation face image moves in accordance with the contact manipulation of the user, and the manipulation image included in the manipulation face image is separated from the manipulation unit;”. If these conditions are met, then what?
Claim 8 recites “the attribute includes information representing a type of the available manipulation unit and information representing presence or absence of pressure sensing in the available manipulation unit.” It is unclear whether an attribute includes the recited information, or whether the available manipulation unit information includes the recited information. The Examiner suggests --the [[attribute]] available manipulation unit information includes information representing a type of the available manipulation unit and information representing presence or absence of pressure sensing in the available manipulation unit.--
Claim 9 recites “displaying, in a state where the manipulation image is aligned so as to coincide with the manipulation unit, the manipulation image after adjustment of the display manner on the display screen.” It is unclear whether the recited state is a state before adjustment or a state after adjustment. The Examiner suggests --displaying[[, in a state where the manipulation image is aligned so as to coincide with the manipulation unit,]] the manipulation image after adjustment of the display manner on the display screen so as to coincide with the manipulation unit after adjustment.—
Independent claim 13 recites “the processor to execute: a manipulation unit control unit, distinct from the control unit”. It is noted by the Examiner that a processor executes commands or software routines, but a processor does not execute a manipulation unit control unit, distinct from a control unit.
Claim 14 recites “the processor further executes a judgment unit”. It is noted by the Examiner that a processor executes commands or software routines, but a processor does not execute a judgment unit.
Claim 15 recites “the processor further executes: a display manner change unit”. It is noted by the Examiner that a processor executes commands or software routines, but a processor does not execute a display manner change unit.
A similar recitation in claim 16 is similarly indefinite.
Claim 16 recites “adjust a display manner of the manipulation image to be displayed on the display screen in accordance with a state of a screen region”. It is unclear whether “a state” refers to a state before adjustment or a state after adjustment.
A similar recitation in claim 17 is similarly indefinite.
Other rejected claims are indefinite by virtue of dependency from at least one indefinite claim.
Regarding claim 4: In the absence of a reasonably definite interpretation of a claim, it is improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on these assumptions (In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962)). See MPEP 2143.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 9-10, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applied Sciences Group (“Virtual Transparency Aided Back Touch”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icoLom4CMws (26 Aug 2014), hereinafter ASG) in view of Schultz et al (“Flat Panel Haptics: Embedded Electroosmotic Pumps for Scalable Shape Displays”, CHI '23, April 23-28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany, 16 pages) and further in view of The Blind Life, “Best Android Icon Pack For Low Vision - Oxygen HD Icons”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_aksXUfuDk (24 Dec 2018, hereinafter Oxygen).
As recited in independent claim 1, to the extent understood, ASG shows an image display method, wherein an information processing apparatus including a display unit (see the device depicted in the video) provided with a display (see graphics displayed at 0:23, for example) and a touch panel (inherent to “touch to start!”, see 0:23) and a control unit (inherently) comprising a processor configured to execute (to the extent understood) a manipulation unit (rear touch panel, for example) to be contact-manipulated by a user (see user’s fingers touching the rear touch panel at 0:36, for example) in a partial region (user’s left hand contacts the left region, for example) of an obverse side (facing away from the viewer) of the display unit, the display including a display screen (see graphics displayed at 0:23, for example) including a display screen (see graphics displayed at 0:23, for example) on which a manipulation face image (see displayed interface at 0:24, for example) including at least one manipulation image (see white dot where user has touched the screen at 0:24, for example) is to be displayed, the touch panel (facing the viewer) being configured to detect a contact manipulation (see user touching the touchscreen at 0:23) of the user on the manipulation image (see white ring at 0:24 and white circle at 0:24), the display method comprising: displaying the manipulation face image (see image displayed at 0:36, for example) on the display screen (facing the user) in a state where the manipulation image (see white ring at 0:24 and white circle at 0:24) is aligned so as to coincide with the manipulation unit (facing away from the viewer and touched by the user); and detecting the contact manipulation (see user’s left fingers touching the obverse at 0:36) of the user (hands shown are a user’s hands) on the manipulation unit, wherein said manipulation face image is to be aligned with the manipulation unit (rear touch panel).
As recited in independent claim 1, ASG is silent regarding deforming the partial region such that: the manipulation unit is formed in the partial region; or the partial region, in which the manipulation unit is formed, is returned to a state before formation of the manipulation unit.
As recited in independent claim 1, Schultz et al show deforming a partial region ((see Fig. 13 wherein C1 is outward deformation of a power button region, and C2 is inward deformation of a power button region) such that: a manipulation unit (power button) is formed in the partial region (power button region); or the partial region, in which the manipulation unit is formed, is returned to a state before formation of the manipulation unit (insofar as the power button region passes through a flat state on its way from the C1 state to the C2 state).
Moreover, the Examiner finds that deforming a partial region was predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to deform the partial region of ASG as taught by Schultz et al. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to make a video game of ASG more immersive by meaningfully changing shape during operation, thus mimicking our everyday exploratory touch manner and haptic experiences with physical objects as taught by Schultz et al ((“devices offer useful tactile affordances and feedback to our daily computing experiences, allowing us to play more immersive video games… without needing much visual attention. However they come nowhere close to mimicking our everyday haptic experiences with physical objects. … We actively explore the world around us … using a range of exploratory movements and procedures to come to an understanding of the shapes, physical properties and functions of the objects around us … computing interfaces, however, are unable to take advantage of this exploratory, active touch manner of interaction, as the interfaces themselves are incapable of meaningfully changing their shape or configuration during operation. … there is a wide gulf between the types of things we can feel and the ability of our devices to render these same types of feelings”, see page 1, col. 2-page 2, col. 1).
As recited in independent claim 1, ASG is silent regarding allowing the user to select, from among a plurality of manipulation face images, a manipulation face image.
As recited in independent claim 1, Oxygen shows allowing the user to select, from among a plurality of manipulation face images (compare manipulation face images at left and right sides of the screen at 1:45 into the video), a manipulation face image.
Moreover, the Examiner finds that user selection of manipulation face images (to the extent understood) was predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to allow user selection of manipulation face images as taught by Oxygen. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to increase accessibility for blind users by increasing color contrast and outlining manipulation face images in black to visually distinguish manipulation face images from a displayed background as taught by Oxygen (compare manipulation face images at left and right sides of the screen at 1:45 into the video).
As recited in claim 2, ASG is silent regarding whether a manipulation image to be
aligned with the manipulation unit is a manipulation image identified based on manipulation image designation information of the manipulation image included in the manipulation face image.
As recited in claim 2, Schultz et al show a manipulation unit shaped like a snooze bar aligned with a manipulation image shaped like a snooze bar (see Fig. 15 C), wherein the manipulation image is identified (by a snoozing user) based on manipulation image designation information (a snooze bar shape, for example) of the manipulation image (image of a snooze bar) included in the manipulation face image (image including a snooze bar).
Moreover, the Examiner finds that a snooze bar interface including a snooze bar image and an identifiable snooze bar shape was predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include both shape and image information in a snooze bar interface. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to co-locate visuals with predefined shapes as taught by Schultz et al (“these elements are pre-defined shapes, which can then be co-located with visuals when activated”, see page 13, col. 2) in order to mimic the appearance and feel of a physical snooze bar as suggested by Schultz et al (see page 2, col. 1, “mimicking our everyday haptic experiences with physical objects”; see also Fig. 15C).
As recited in claim 5, ASG is silent regarding whether the manipulation image is a button
image.
As recited in claim 5, Schultz et al show that the manipulation image (see Fig. 15C) is a button image (insofar as a snooze bar image is reasonably construed as within the broadest reasonable interpretation of a button image).
Moreover, the Examiner finds that a button image was predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use a button image as the manipulation image in the method of ASG. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to mimic everyday experiences with buttons such as a snooze bar as taught by Schultz et al (“mimicking our everyday haptic experiences with physical objects”, see page 2, col. 1; see also Fig. 15C).
As recited in claim 9, ASG shows adjusting a display manner (see image distortion aligned with the user’s finger, and objects appearing to roll downhill from the user’s finger) of a manipulation image (see graphics facing the user including a white dot corresponding to the user’s touch) to be displayed on the display screen in accordance with a state of a screen region, in which the manipulation unit (facing away from the viewer) overlaps with a specific image (see image displayed facing the user), of the display screen (facing the viewer), and displaying, in a state where the manipulation image (see graphics facing the user including a white dot corresponding to the user’s touch) is aligned so as to coincide with the manipulation unit (facing away from the viewer), the manipulation image (see graphics facing the user including a white dot corresponding to the user’s touch) after adjustment of the display manner (see image distortion aligned with the user’s finger, and objects appearing to roll downhill from the user’s finger) on the display screen (facing the viewer).
As recited in claim 10, ASG shows that the specific image is a game image (see game).
As recited in claim 10, AST is silent regarding whether the manipulation image is a button image.
See teachings, findings, and rationale above for claim 5.
As recited in independent claim 13, ASG shows a display unit (see device in the video) provided with a display (see graphics displayed, e.g. “GAME OVER touch to start!”) and a touch panel (one touch panel exists facing the user, and another touch panel exists facing away from the user) configured to form a manipulation unit (rear touch panel, for example) to be contact-manipulated by a user (see user’s fingers touching the rear touch panel at 0:36, for example) in a partial region (user’s left hand contacts the left region, for example) of an obverse side (facing away from the viewer) of the display unit (see the device depicted in the video), the display (see graphics displayed at 0:23, for example) including a display screen (see graphics displayed at 0:23, for example) on which a manipulation face image (see displayed interface at 0:24, for example) including at least one manipulation image (see white dot where user has touched the screen at 0:24, for example) is to be displayed, the touch panel (facing the viewer) being configured to detect a contact manipulation (see user touching
the touchscreen at 0:23) of the user on the manipulation image (see white ring at 0:24 and white
circle at 0:24); a processor (necessarily) coupled to a memory storing instructions for the processor to execute: a manipulation face image display unit (necessarily, insofar as display of a manipulation face image appears on the screen of ASG) configured to display the manipulation face image (see displayed interface at 0:24, for example) on the display screen (facing the viewer) in a state where the manipulation image (see white dot where user has touched the screen at 0:24, for example) is aligned so as to coincide with the manipulation unit (facing away from the viewer and touched by the user); and a contact manipulation detection unit (such a unit is inherent insofar as the device would not otherwise know where to move a video ball responsive to input from the user’s finger) configured to detect a contact manipulation (see user’s left fingers touching the obverse at 0:36) of the user (hands shown are a user’s hands) on the manipulation unit (rear touch panel).
As recited in independent claim 13, ASG is silent regarding a control unit and a manipulation unit control unit, distinct from the control unit, and configured to deform a partial region such that: a manipulation unit is formed in the partial region; or the partial region, in which the manipulation unit is formed, is returned to a state before formation of the manipulation unit.
As recited in independent claim 13, Schultz et al disclose a control unit (“controlled via SPI using a Teensy 4.0 microcontroller”, see 3.6 Control Electronics) and a manipulation unit control unit (“embedded electroosmotic pumps (EEOPs)”, see Abstract), distinct from the control unit (“Teensy 4.0 microcontroller”), and configured to deform a partial region (see Fig. 13 wherein C1 is outward deformation of a power button region, and C2 is inward deformation of a power button region) such that a manipulation unit (power button) is formed in the partial region (power button region) or such that the partial region, in which the manipulation unit (power button, for example) is formed, is returned to a state before formation of the manipulation unit (insofar as the power button region passes through a flat state on its way from the C1 state to the C2 state); a manipulation face image display unit (OLED and its controllers, for example) configured to display the manipulation face image (see Figs. 14-15, for example) on the display screen (OLED screen) in a state (see especially Figs. 14D, 15A, and 15C) where the manipulation image (icon or snooze bar image, for example) is aligned (see location of icon relative to location of inflation/deflation; see location of snooze bar image relative to inflated or deflated snooze bar) so as to coincide (see locations of icon or snooze bar images relative to inflated/deflated buttons in Figs. 14 and 15) with the manipulation unit (rear touch panel).
Moreover, the Examiner finds that deforming a partial region to form a manipulation unit was predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to deform a partial region of ASG as taught by Schultz et al. The rationale is as follows: one
of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to make the video game of ASG more
immersive by meaningfully changing shape during operation, thus mimicking our everyday
exploratory touch manner and haptic experiences with physical objects as taught by Schultz et al
(“devices offer useful tactile affordances and feedback to our daily computing experiences,
allowing us to play more immersive video games… without needing much visual attention.
However they come nowhere close to mimicking our everyday haptic experiences with physical
objects. … We actively explore the world around us … using a range of exploratory movements
and procedures to come to an understanding of the shapes, physical properties and functions of
the objects around us … computing interfaces, however, are unable to take advantage of this
exploratory, active touch manner of interaction, as the interfaces themselves are incapable of
meaningfully changing their shape or configuration during operation. … there is a wide gulf
between the types of things we can feel and the ability of our devices to render these same types
of feelings”, see page 1, col. 2-page 2, col. 1).
As recited in independent claim 13, ASG is silent regarding whether the processor is configured to allow the user to select, from among a plurality of manipulation face images, a manipulation face image to be aligned with the manipulation unit.
See teachings, findings, and rationale above for independent claim 1.
As recited in claim 15, ASG shows a display manner change unit (necessarily, insofar as display manner is actually adjusted) configured to adjust a display manner (see distortion coinciding with the user’s touch) of the manipulation image (including white dot centered upon the distortion) to be displayed on the display screen in accordance with a state of a screen region, in which the manipulation unit overlaps with a specific image (see game image), of the display screen (facing the viewer); and a manipulation face image display unit (necessarily, insofar as an adjusted manipulation image is actually displayed) configured to display the manipulation image (including white dot) after adjustment of the display manner (see distortion surrounding white dot) on the display screen (facing the user) in a state where the manipulation image (including white dot) is aligned so as to coincide (insofar as the white dot coincides with the user’s touch point) with the manipulation unit (touched by the user, facing away from the viewer).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 11-12, 14, and 16-17 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has failed to remedy at least some of the objections to the drawings. The replacement drawings have not been entered.
Applicant has failed to remedy at least some of the objections to the specification.
Applicant has failed to present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions. Furthermore, Applicant has failed to amend the claim limitations to recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions.
The claims are still vague and indefinite for the reasons stated above.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the obviousness rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The newly cited reference has been introduced as documentary evidence in response to Applicant’s traversal of Official Notice.
In response to applicant's argument that “the alleged combination of the references does not even recognize the problems addressed by the claims”, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the references cited are replete with reasons to combine. See rationales stated above.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julie Anne Watko whose telephone number is (571)272-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 9AM-5PM, Wednesday 10:30AM-5PM, Thursday-Friday 9AM-5PM, and occasional Saturdays.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
JULIE ANNE WATKO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2627
/Julie Anne Watko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
01/03/2026
Prosecution Insights