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 . 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Priority
The USPTO has retrieved certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). These papers have been placed of record in the file. A certified English translation is not currently required and has not been filed. Filing of a certified English translation may become necessary during prosecution of this application, such as in the event of an interference or intervening reference. Applicant is advised that should a certified English translation be required, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in order for applicant to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). See 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e) or 37 CFR 1.55 and MPEP § 201.15, respectively. In that event, failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation "the acquisition unit" in section 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 contains a term purporting to be the trademark/trade name “(QR) code®”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a two-dimensional barcode that stores data as a pattern of black and white squares, and accordingly the identification/description is indefinite. Examiner further believes the trademark is actually “QR code” rather than “(QR) code,” but applicant’s attempted use of the trademark together with the registration symbol “®” renders the claim indefinite regardless of whether the actual recited mark is correct.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (step 2B). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 189 L. Ed. 2d 296, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4303, 110 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1976, 82 U.S.L.W. 4508, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 870, 2014 WL 2765283 (U.S. 2014); MPEP 2106.
Step 1:
In the instant case claims 1-10 are directed to a machine, claim 11 is directed to a process, and claim 12 is directed to a manufacture. All claims are therefore within statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03, Eligibility Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
These claims also recite, inter alia,
“acquiring contract information that is received … and indicates a contract status regarding a use of a delivery service for delivering a consumable item for a printing apparatus; and performing control, based on the contract information received by the acquiring, to display a specific display item for ordering a consumable item while the delivery service is not contracted, and not to display the specific display item while the delivery service is contracted.” Claim 11.
With recited additional elements reserved for consideration alone and all together combined with their recited role(s) in the claim under step 2A prong two, a careful analysis of the remaining limitations above results in the conclusion that each on its own recites an abstract idea and in combination they simply recite a more detailed abstract idea. The recited abstract idea falls within the grouping of abstract ideas described as certain methods of organizing human activity, for example commercial interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). See MPEP 2106.04(a); Eligibility Step 2A1. The claims must therefore be analyzed under the second prong of Eligibility Step 2 (Step 2A2; MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In order to address prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step2A2) we must identify whether there are any additional elements beyond the abstract ideas and determine whether those additional elements (if there are any) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step 2A2. The additional elements in the present claims are a server system in all claims, at least one memory storing a program and at least one processor in claims 1-10, and a computer readable non-transitory storage medium storing a program in claim 12. These additional elements have been considered individually, in combination, and altogether as a whole together with the functions they perform, e.g., the server system is a source of contract information that indicates a contract status. The memory and medium storing a program and processor(s) are entirely generic elements broadly and generally recited as performing all steps in terms of the intended results of functionally nonspecific activities. These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim is almost entirely a recitation of abstract ideas. The substantive process is recited only by descriptions of abstract intended results of the steps without indicating any particular functional acts performed by any device or structural element to perform the steps or otherwise obtain the intended results. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of any computer or other technology or technical field, they do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, they do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing, and they fail to apply or use the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05.
If the disclosure describes any improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field this improvement would need to be identifiable as the subject matter appearing in the claims. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim limitations can integrate a judicial exception into a practical application by implementing the judicial exception with or using it in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception by use of generic computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP 2106.05(b),(f). There are no particular machines or manufactures identified in the present claims.
The claims do not affect the transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Purely mental processes in which data, thoughts, impressions, or human based actions are "changed" are not considered a transformation. MPEP 2106.05(c).
The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. As a result the claim as a whole appears to be a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. MPEP 2106.05(e),(h).
The additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Although the additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application the claims could still be eligible if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more” than the judicial exception). MPEP 2106.05, Eligibility Step 2B.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the sparse additional elements in the claims are mere props supporting instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims invoke computers or other machinery merely as tools to perform an abstract process. Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9721, 115 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”). The elements fail to present a technical solution to a technical problem created by the use of the surrounding technology. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. See Ret. Capital Access Mgmt. Co. v. U.S. Bancorp, 611 Fed. Appx. 1007, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“It may be very clever; it may be very useful in a commercial context, but they are still abstract ideas,” said Circuit Judge Alan Lourie.). MPEP 2106.05(h).
Finally, it is reiterated that the remaining dependent claims 2-10 do not contribute any additional elements other than those already discussed and do not add "significantly more" to establish eligibility because they merely recite additional abstract ideas that further identify data used in implementing the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea is still abstract. PricePlay.com, Inc. v. AOL Adver., Inc., 627 Fed. Appx. 925, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 611, 2016 WL 80002 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2016) (in addressing a bundle of abstract ideas stacked together during oral argument, U.S. Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore said, "All of these ideas are abstract…. It’s like you want a patent because you combined two abstract ideas and say two is better than one.").
All of the above leads to the conclusion that additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the claimed subject matter into significantly more than an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05; Eligibility Step 2B. As a result the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because they recite an abstract idea without being directed to a practical application, and they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05, supra..
The preceding analysis applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, claims 1-12 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101 based upon the same analysis.
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 1-5, 7-9, and 11-12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 吉野真澄 (JP 4193574 B2) in view of OGAWA (Pub. No.: US 2024/0104637 A1).
吉野真澄 teaches, a) monitoring usage of a consumable item, b) delivery service for consumable item, c) determining contract status for delivery of consumable item, and d) an interactive element for ordering consumable item, and discloses regarding
Claim 1. A print control apparatus comprising: ● at least one memory storing a program (see at least 吉野真澄 ¶0007 “stored compatible program from the first storage medium”); and ● at least one processor that executes the stored program (see at least 吉野真澄¶0007 “installing a compatible program in a computer that adapts a peripheral device accompanied by consumption of the consumable to the computer,” ¶0021 “The computer system 20 is configured around a CPU”), which cause the at least one processor to: ● acquire contract information that is received from a server system and indicates a contract status regarding a use of a delivery service for delivering a consumable item for a printing apparatus (see at least 吉野真澄 ¶0004 “URLs of a plurality of sales sites that sell ink online and addresses of sales outlets nationwide that sell ink are obtained from a server and provided. Since the address is displayed, the user must select which sales site or store to purchase. At this time, depending on the user, even if there is a request to purchase at a sales site operated by a store that has consulted when purchasing a printer, the target sales site is found from the URLs of many sales sites,” ¶0015 “conforming program supplies the consumables supplier information to the predetermined place”).
吉野真澄 teaches all of the above as noted, and discloses
● perform control, based on the contract information received by the acquisition unit, to display a specific display item for ordering a consumable item while the delivery service is not contracted (see at least 吉野真澄 ¶0002 “provides information for purchasing ink on the printer status screen displayed on the monitor connected to the computer when the ink remaining in the inkjet printer is low,” ¶0024 “dealer information 52 is used when an ink cartridge is ordered by the installed printer driver 42 when any of the ink cartridges used in the printer 30 is low,” ¶0027 “warning screen displayed on the display 26 of the computer system 20 by the printer driver 42 when the remaining amount of the color ink “Yellow” is low. … In the example of FIG. 5, an “ink order” button is provided.” Please note: the prior art describes display of the purchasing information only when the remaining ink is low and delivery subsequently being contracted, so that once contracted the ink remaining would no longer be low and the display item for ordering would not be displayed.), but does not explicitly disclose not to display the specific display item while the delivery service is contracted.
Ogawa also teaches a) monitoring usage of a consumable item, b) delivery service for consumable item, c) determining contract status for delivery of consumable item, and d) an interactive element for ordering consumable item, and further discloses not to display the specific display item while the delivery service is contracted. Ogawa teaches
● perform control, based on the contract information received by the acquisition unit, to display a specific display item for ordering a consumable item while the delivery service is not contracted, and not to display the specific display item while the delivery service is contracted (see at least Ogawa ¶0055 “In S34, the printer app 50 displays an app screenSC4 which does not include the purchase button 300 on the display unit 14. The app screen SC4 is the same as the app screen SC3 except that the former does not include the purchase button 300. If the contract for the automatic shipping service or the flat-rate printing service is already in effect, ink CTG(s) is automatically shipped. Since the user does not need to perform an act of purchasing ink CTG(s), the purchase button 300 is not displayed. Since the unnecessary button is not displayed, which helps the user see the app screen SC4 more easily.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of 吉野真澄 to include not to display the specific display item while the delivery service is contracted, as taught by Ogawa since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from Ogawa in the method of 吉野真澄. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
吉野真澄 (JP 4193574 B2) in view of OGAWA further teaches, regarding
Claim 2. The print control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the stored program further causes the at least one processor to store the contract information received from the server system, and to acquire the contract information from the storage unit (see at least 吉野真澄 ¶0004 “URLs of a plurality of sales sites that sell ink online and addresses of sales outlets nationwide that sell ink are obtained from a server and provided. Since the address is displayed, the user must select which sales site or store to purchase. At this time, depending on the user, even if there is a request to purchase at a sales site operated by a store that has consulted when purchasing a printer, the target sales site is found from the URLs of many sales sites,” ¶0015 “conforming program supplies the consumables supplier information to the predetermined place,” and OGAWA figs.4, 7, ¶0044 “terminal 10 registers information related to the printer 100 to a storage area in the memory 34 that is assigned to the printer app,” ¶0051 “printer information includes contract information”).Claim 3. The print control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the stored program further causes the at least one processor to further function as a print unit configured to execute printing (see at least OGAWA ¶0024 “The printer app 50 is a program for causing the printer 100 to execute printing”).Claim 4. The print control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the stored program further causes the at least one processor to acquire the contract information received from the server system from the printing apparatus (see at least 吉野真澄 ¶0004 “URLs of a plurality of sales sites that sell ink online and addresses of sales outlets nationwide that sell ink are obtained from a server and provided,” and OGAWA figs.4, 7, ¶0044 “terminal 10 registers information related to the printer 100 to a storage area in the memory 34 that is assigned to the printer app,” ¶0051 “printer information includes contract information”).Claim 5. The print control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the stored program further causes the at least one processor to transmit a print job to the printing apparatus (吉野真澄 does not appear to explicitly disclose this feature, but see at least OGAWA figs.2-8).
Claim 7. The print control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the specific display item is operated, the stored program further causes the at least one processor to perform processing for displaying a web page for ordering a consumable item (see at least 吉野真澄 ¶0028 “when the “Web” order button is pressed, a response on the Internet using the URL of a page selling ink cartridges of a sales site operated by a sales store in the sales store information 52 registered in the registry is used. For example, a page of a site selling ink cartridges as shown in FIG. 7 is displayed so that ink can be ordered on the web”).Claim 8. The print control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where an instruction to display information about a consumable item is received, the stored program further causes the at least one processor to perform control to display status information about the consumable item together with the specific display item while the delivery service is not contracted, and to display status information about the consumable item but not to display the specific display item while the delivery service is contracted (see at least 吉野真澄 ¶0002 “provides information for purchasing ink on the printer status screen displayed on the monitor connected to the computer when the ink remaining in the inkjet printer is low,” ¶0024 “dealer information 52 is used when an ink cartridge is ordered by the installed printer driver 42 when any of the ink cartridges used in the printer 30 is low,” ¶0027 “warning screen displayed on the display 26 of the computer system 20 by the printer driver 42 when the remaining amount of the color ink “Yellow” is low. … In the example of FIG. 5, an “ink order” button is provided,” in view of Ogawa as detailed above.).Claim 9. The print control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where a request to display a web page is received from a browser of an external apparatus, the stored program further causes the at least one processor to perform control to display the specific display item on the web page while the delivery service is not contracted, and not to display the specific display item on the web page while the delivery service is contracted (see at least 吉野真澄 ¶0027 “an “ink order” button is provided,” ¶0028 “when the “Web” order button is pressed, a response on the Internet using the URL of a page selling ink cartridges of a sales site operated by a sales store in the sales store information 52 registered in the registry is used. For example, a page of a site selling ink cartridges as shown in FIG. 7 is displayed so that ink can be ordered on the web,” ¶0030 “when the “Web” order button is pressed on the ink order screen, the ABC store operates until the change is made. After changing the page that sold the ink cartridge on the sales site, display the page selling the ink cartridge on the sales site operated by the XYZ dealer,” in view of Ogawa figs. 5, 7-8, ¶0016 “terminal 10 can connect to the Internet 4 via the AP 6. The terminal 10 may connect to the Internet 4 without the intervention of the AP 6,” ¶0023 “browser app 42 is a program for accessing a web server (e.g., the server 200) on the Internet for browse of a webpage,” ¶0055 “In S34, the printer app 50 displays an app screenSC4 which does not include the purchase button 300 on the display unit 14. The app screen SC4 is the same as the app screen SC3 except that the former does not include the purchase button 300. If the contract for the automatic shipping service or the flat-rate printing service is already in effect, ink CTG(s) is automatically shipped. Since the user does not need to perform an act of purchasing ink CTG(s), the purchase button 300 is not displayed. Since the unnecessary button is not displayed, which helps the user see the app screen SC4 more easily,” as detailed above).
Pertaining to method claim 11 and computer readable medium claim 12
Rejection of claims 11 and 12 is based on the same rationale noted above. In addition, 吉野真澄 discloses, regarding
Claim 12. A computer readable non-transitory storage medium storing a program for causing at least one computer to perform a method for controlling a print control apparatus (see at least 吉野真澄 ¶0007 “a compatible program in a computer … (A) reading the stored compatible program from the first storage medium storing the compatible program, and installing it on a computer; (B) Reading the stored purchase destination information from the second storage medium storing the purchase destination information and adding it to the installed compatible program so that it can be used”).
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 吉野真澄 (JP 4193574 B2) in view of OGAWA (Pub. No.: US 2024/0104637 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akimoto et al. (Patent No.: US 11,327,691 B2).
吉野真澄 in view of Ogawa teaches all of the above as noted. It teaches, a) monitoring usage of a consumable item, b) delivery service for consumable item, c) determining contract status for delivery of consumable item, and d) an interactive element for ordering consumable item, but does not explicitly disclose displaying a quick response (QR) Code® in which a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) of a web page for ordering a consumable item is embedded and wherein the server system is included in a system that provides the delivery service.
Akimoto also teaches a) monitoring usage of a consumable item, b) delivery service for consumable item, c) determining contract status for delivery of consumable item, and d) an interactive element for ordering consumable item, and further discloses, regarding
Claim 6. The print control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the specific display item is operated, the stored program further causes the at least one processor to perform processing for displaying a quick response (QR) Code® in which a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) of a web page for ordering a consumable item is embedded (see at least Akimoto figs. 9C, 10B, 14, 17, c11:1-11 “a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) of the website where a contract can be made is displayed with a QR codeTR (two-dimensional barcode) 912. When a user reads the QR code 912 with a smartphone or the like, the user can recognize the URL and access the website where a contract can be made with the smartphone or the like and can thereby make a contract with the toner delivery system”).
Claim 10. The print control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the server system is included in a system that provides the delivery service (see at least Akimoto abstract “A delivery system including an information processing apparatus operated by a user, a printing apparatus and a server that instructs delivery of a consumable of the printing apparatus. … and delivers the consumable to the user when a remaining amount of the consumable is less than a predetermined amount in the printing apparatus.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of 吉野真澄 in view of Ogawa to include displaying a quick response (QR) Code® in which a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) of a web page for ordering a consumable item is embedded and wherein the server system is included in a system that provides the delivery service, as taught by Akimoto since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from Akimoto in the method of 吉野真澄 in view of Ogawa. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Conclusion
The following reference made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
● KATAYAMA, Pub. No.: US 2026/0064329 A1: teaches display of error message related to a print project only if there is a contracted service provider and otherwise does not display. Not prior art but could be relevant in a non-statutory double patenting context if the claims become too similar during the course of prosecution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM LEVINE whose telephone number is (571)272-8122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-7:30pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571.272.6764. 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.
/ADAM L LEVINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 July 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights