DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This is an initial office action in response to communication(s) filed on January 27, 2025.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 27, 2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non- structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function.
the term “means”, or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for’) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that’; and
the term “means”, or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder (i.e. “units”) that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an acquisition unit”, “a reception unit”, “a generation unit” and “an execution unit” of indep. Claim 11 (similarly the steps in indep. Claims 1 and 12).
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,0 it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that, with respect to “an acquisition unit”, “a reception unit”, “a generation unit” and “an execution unit” of indep. Claim 11, it appears that the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 USC 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC 112, sixth paragraph, could not be explicitly located (similarly for indep. Claims 1 and 12).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action. 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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 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.
The independent claim 11, contains the limitations of: “an acquisition unit”, “a reception unit”, “a generation unit” and “an execution unit”, the specification does not mention the terms and/or claim limitations mentioned above. In addition, in indep. Claims 1 and 12 have similar issues relating to the steps (and the issue(s) identified in indep. Claim 1 also affects the corresponding dependent claims 2-10). Therefore, one cannot determine the further features of the units besides what is described in the claims. As a result of 35 USC 112(f) invoking in regard to the units (and/or steps and processes), there needs to be more information to identify what the units comprise of structurally and the corresponding actions they perform.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saigusa (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0055893 A1), and further in view of Kanno (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0004186 A1).
With regard to claim 1, the claim is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an application program for causing an information processing apparatus to execute a method of supporting general-purpose software incorporated in an operating system in advance by executing the application program (see Saigusa, i.e. in fig. 2, para. 20-22, disclose the client computer 101, terminals 106a-106b and etc.; also see fig. 4, para. 36, 40 and etc., disclose that “[0036] Subsequently, an example of a software configuration of the terminal 106 will be described with reference to FIG. 4. An OS 405 includes a system 404 for basic operation of the OS. The system 404 includes a driver 406 that controls a device connected to the terminal 106, and a communication module 407 to enable the terminal 106 to communicate with outside via the network 104…” ), the method comprising:
acquiring FAX capabilities information of an image processing apparatus (see Saigusa, i.e. in fig. 2, disclose the Network I/F 212, and para. 25 and etc., disclose that “[0025] The control unit 200 is connected to the network 104 via a network I/F 212. The network/F 212 transmits print data to a printer on the network 104, and receives an application, a printer driver, etc. from a server on the network 104. Data communication with an external terminal on the network 104 is, for example, wireless communication conforming to IEEE 802.11 series, mobile communication using long term evolution (LTE) and fifth generation mobile communications system (5G), or communication via a wired cable such as a local area network (LAN) cable.”; also, in fig. 9A, steps S905-906, para. 63, 70, 79 and etc., disclose document creation application requests the capability information of the printer selected by default to the cloud service, wherein the cloud service returns the capability information with respect to simple functions used in common by a plurality of printer vendors conforming to the internet printing protocol (IPP) and etc.);
receiving settings of functions based on the FAX capabilities information (see Saigusa, i.e. in fig. 4, para. 36 and etc., disclose the communication module 407; also in fig. 9A, para. 79 and etc., disclose that “the cloud service 500 accesses the printer database 5200, and returns the capability information 5203 of the corresponding printer to the document creation application 403. As a result, the document creation application 403 can know the functions usable by the printer selected in the print setting screen and the print extension application 402 corresponding to the selected printer…”);
causing the general-purpose software to generate image data based on the settings (see Saigusa, i.e. in fig. 4, para. 39 and etc., disclose the document creation application 403, and “the document creation application 403 that can create document data and image data such as spreadsheet data. The print extension application 402 may be a dedicated application, or a web application that includes a web browser displaying a web page…”); and
causing the image processing apparatus to execute processing for transmitting the image data by FAX (see Saigusa, i.e. in fig. 4, para. 39, 42-44, and etc., disclose that “[0039] The OS 405 is installed with the applications 401, the print extension application 402 performing operation dedicated for printing in cooperation with the cloud service, and the document creation application 403 that can create document data and image data such as spreadsheet data. The print extension application 402 may be a dedicated application, or a web application that includes a web browser displaying a web page…”).
The teachings of Saigusa merely lack in explicitly disclosing the image processing apparatus having the FAX capabilities.
However, Kanno discloses an analogous invention relates to a printer device, a control method for a printer device, an information processing apparatus, a control method for an information processing apparatus, and a storage medium therefor (see Kanno, i.e. abstract, para. 1 and etc.). More specifically, in Kanno, i.e. in para. 45 and etc., disclose that “[0045] The printer device 105 has a function of receiving print data from the outside and performing printing. In the first embodiment, the case of employing a single-function peripheral (SFP) as an example of the printer device is exemplified, but the present disclosure is not limited thereto. It is instead possible to employ a multi-function peripheral (MFP) obtained by integrating a plurality of functions of, for example, copying, printing, FAX, and image reading in a single casing”.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saigusa to include the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Kanno, with the limitation(s) discussed above relating to FAX, as the cited prior arts are at least considered to be analogous arts if not also in the same field of endeavor relating to image and/or document processing arts. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saigusa by the teachings of Kanno, and to incorporate the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Kanno, thereby “…to make the most of the capabilities of a printer device and an optional apparatus even in the above-mentioned case of performing printing through use of a general-purpose printer driver that does not support a function of controlling a vendor-specific optional apparatus” (see Kanno, i.e. para. 4 and etc.).
With regard to claim 8, the claim is drawn to the storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: displaying, when the FAX transmission processing performed by the image processing apparatus is terminated, a notification screen concerning a success or a failure of this FAX transmission processing (see Saigusa, i.e. in fig. 9A, step S929, disclose display detailed print setting screen, and in para 93 and etc., disclose that “In step S929, the print extension application 402 generates the detailed print setting screen including print preview, from the acquired job and the acquired printer capability information, and displays the detailed print setting screen…”; also see steps S932-936 of Fig. 9A, including notify success of reception of print request).
With regard to claim 9, the claim is drawn to the storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: starting a predetermined application that performs control to display the notification screen concerning a success or a failure of the FAX transmission processing performed by the image processing apparatus (see Saigusa, i.e. in fig. 9A, step S929, disclose display detailed print setting screen, and in para 93 and etc., disclose that “In step S929, the print extension application 402 generates the detailed print setting screen including print preview, from the acquired job and the acquired printer capability information, and displays the detailed print setting screen…”; also see steps S932-936 of Fig. 9A, including notify success of reception of print request), and
wherein the predetermined application performs control to display the notification screen according to an instruction provided by a user (see Saigusa, i.e. in para. 31 and etc., disclose that “[0031] An operation unit IF 305 connects an operation unit 306 and the control unit 300. The operation unit 306 includes a liquid crystal display unit having a touch panel function and various kinds of hardware keys. The operation unit 306 functions as a display unit displaying information and a reception unit receiving an instruction by the user…”).
With regard to claim 10, the claim is drawn to the storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: controlling a configuration of a setting UI for making FAX settings based on whether or not information on a FAX extension function is included in the FAX capabilities information (see Saigusa, i.e. in Fig. 7A-7D, para. 14 and etc., disclose that “[0014] FIGS. 7A, 7B, 7C, and 7D are diagrams each illustrating an example of a user interface (UI) displayed on a terminal by a document creation application according to the present exemplary embodiment”; also the discussions of teachings from Kanno relating to FAX capabilities as set forth in discussion of claim 1 above, also incorporated by reference herein).
With regard to claim 11, the claim is drawn to an information processing apparatus that is equipped with an operating system and an application program for supporting general-purpose software incorporated in the operating system in advance (see Saigusa, i.e. in fig. 2, para. 20-22, disclose the client computer 101, terminals 106a-106b and etc.; also see fig. 4, para. 36, 40 and etc., disclose that “[0036] Subsequently, an example of a software configuration of the terminal 106 will be described with reference to FIG. 4. An OS 405 includes a system 404 for basic operation of the OS. The system 404 includes a driver 406 that controls a device connected to the terminal 106, and a communication module 407 to enable the terminal 106 to communicate with outside via the network 104…” ), comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire FAX capabilities information of an image processing apparatus (see Saigusa, i.e. in fig. 2, disclose the Network I/F 212, and para. 25 and etc., disclose that “[0025] The control unit 200 is connected to the network 104 via a network I/F 212. The network/F 212 transmits print data to a printer on the network 104, and receives an application, a printer driver, etc. from a server on the network 104. Data communication with an external terminal on the network 104 is, for example, wireless communication conforming to IEEE 802.11 series, mobile communication using long term evolution (LTE) and fifth generation mobile communications system (5G), or communication via a wired cable such as a local area network (LAN) cable.”; also in fig. 9A, steps S905-906, para. 63, 70, 79 and etc., disclose document creation application requests the capability information of the printer selected by default to the cloud service, wherein the cloud service returns the capability information with respect to simple functions used in common by a plurality of printer vendors conforming to the internet printing protocol (IPP) and etc.);
a reception unit configured to receive settings of functions based on the FAX capabilities information (see Saigusa, i.e. in fig. 4, para. 36 and etc., disclose the communication module 407; also in fig. 9A, para. 79 and etc., disclose that “the cloud service 500 accesses the printer database 5200, and returns the capability information 5203 of the corresponding printer to the document creation application 403. As a result, the document creation application 403 can know the functions usable by the printer selected in the print setting screen and the print extension application 402 corresponding to the selected printer…”);
a generation unit configured to cause the general-purpose software to generate image data based on the settings (see Saigusa, i.e. in fig. 4, para. 39 and etc., disclose the document creation application 403, and “the document creation application 403 that can create document data and image data such as spreadsheet data. The print extension application 402 may be a dedicated application, or a web application that includes a web browser displaying a web page…”); and
an execution unit configured to cause the image processing apparatus to execute processing for transmitting the image data by FAX (see Saigusa, i.e. in fig. 4, para. 39, 42-44, and etc., disclose that “[0039] The OS 405 is installed with the applications 401, the print extension application 402 performing operation dedicated for printing in cooperation with the cloud service, and the document creation application 403 that can create document data and image data such as spreadsheet data. The print extension application 402 may be a dedicated application, or a web application that includes a web browser displaying a web page…”).
The teachings of Saigusa merely lack in explicitly disclose the image processing apparatus having the FAX capabilities.
However, Kanno discloses an analogous invention relates to a printer device, a control method for a printer device, an information processing apparatus, a control method for an information processing apparatus, and a storage medium therefor (see Kanno, i.e. abstract, para. 1 and etc.). More specifically, in Kanno, i.e. in para. 45 and etc., disclose that “[0045] The printer device 105 has a function of receiving print data from the outside and performing printing. In the first embodiment, the case of employing a single-function peripheral (SFP) as an example of the printer device is exemplified, but the present disclosure is not limited thereto. It is instead possible to employ a multi-function peripheral (MFP) obtained by integrating a plurality of functions of, for example, copying, printing, FAX, and image reading in a single casing”.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saigusa to include the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Kanno, with the limitation(s) discussed above relating to FAX, as the cited prior arts are at least considered to be analogous arts if not also in the same field of endeavor relating to image and/or document processing arts. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saigusa by the teachings of Kanno, and to incorporate the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Kanno, thereby “…to make the most of the capabilities of a printer device and an optional apparatus even in the above-mentioned case of performing printing through use of a general-purpose printer driver that does not support a function of controlling a vendor-specific optional apparatus” (see Kanno, i.e. para. 4 and etc.).
With regard to claim 12, the claim is drawn to a method of controlling an information processing apparatus that is equipped with an operating system and an application program for supporting general-purpose software incorporated in the operating system in advance (see Saigusa, i.e. in fig. 2, para. 20-22, disclose the client computer 101, terminals 106a-106b and etc.; also see fig. 4, para. 36, 40 and etc., disclose that “[0036] Subsequently, an example of a software configuration of the terminal 106 will be described with reference to FIG. 4. An OS 405 includes a system 404 for basic operation of the OS. The system 404 includes a driver 406 that controls a device connected to the terminal 106, and a communication module 407 to enable the terminal 106 to communicate with outside via the network 104…” ), comprising:
acquiring FAX capabilities information of an image processing apparatus (see Saigusa, i.e. in fig. 2, disclose the Network I/F 212, and para. 25 and etc., disclose that “[0025] The control unit 200 is connected to the network 104 via a network I/F 212. The network/F 212 transmits print data to a printer on the network 104, and receives an application, a printer driver, etc. from a server on the network 104. Data communication with an external terminal on the network 104 is, for example, wireless communication conforming to IEEE 802.11 series, mobile communication using long term evolution (LTE) and fifth generation mobile communications system (5G), or communication via a wired cable such as a local area network (LAN) cable.”; also in fig. 9A, steps S905-906, para. 63, 70, 79 and etc., disclose document creation application requests the capability information of the printer selected by default to the cloud service, wherein the cloud service returns the capability information with respect to simple functions used in common by a plurality of printer vendors conforming to the internet printing protocol (IPP) and etc.);
receiving settings of functions based on the FAX capabilities information (see Saigusa, i.e. in fig. 4, para. 36 and etc., disclose the communication module 407; also in fig. 9A, para. 79 and etc., disclose that “the cloud service 500 accesses the printer database 5200, and returns the capability information 5203 of the corresponding printer to the document creation application 403. As a result, the document creation application 403 can know the functions usable by the printer selected in the print setting screen and the print extension application 402 corresponding to the selected printer…”);
causing the general-purpose software to generate image data based on the setting (see Saigusa, i.e. in fig. 4, para. 39 and etc., disclose the document creation application 403, and “the document creation application 403 that can create document data and image data such as spreadsheet data. The print extension application 402 may be a dedicated application, or a web application that includes a web browser displaying a web page…”); and
causing the image processing apparatus to execute processing for transmitting the image data by FAX (see Saigusa, i.e. in fig. 4, para. 39, 42-44, and etc., disclose that “[0039] The OS 405 is installed with the applications 401, the print extension application 402 performing operation dedicated for printing in cooperation with the cloud service, and the document creation application 403 that can create document data and image data such as spreadsheet data. The print extension application 402 may be a dedicated application, or a web application that includes a web browser displaying a web page…”).
The teachings of Saigusa merely lack in explicitly disclosing the image processing apparatus having the FAX capabilities.
However, Kanno discloses an analogous invention relates to a printer device, a control method for a printer device, an information processing apparatus, a control method for an information processing apparatus, and a storage medium therefor (see Kanno, i.e. abstract, para. 1 and etc.). More specifically, in Kanno, i.e. in para. 45 and etc., disclose that “[0045] The printer device 105 has a function of receiving print data from the outside and performing printing. In the first embodiment, the case of employing a single-function peripheral (SFP) as an example of the printer device is exemplified, but the present disclosure is not limited thereto. It is instead possible to employ a multi-function peripheral (MFP) obtained by integrating a plurality of functions of, for example, copying, printing, FAX, and image reading in a single casing”.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saigusa to include the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Kanno, with the limitation(s) discussed above relating to FAX, as the cited prior arts are at least considered to be analogous arts if not also in the same field of endeavor relating to image and/or document processing arts. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saigusa by the teachings of Kanno, and to incorporate the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Kanno, thereby “…to make the most of the capabilities of a printer device and an optional apparatus even in the above-mentioned case of performing printing through use of a general-purpose printer driver that does not support a function of controlling a vendor-specific optional apparatus” (see Kanno, i.e. para. 4 and etc.).
Allowable Subject Matter
With regard to Claim 2-7, claims are 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 overcoming the corresponding rejections and/or objection (if any) set forth in the Office Action above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 2, the closest prior arts of record, Saigusa and Kanno, do not disclose or suggest, among the other limitations, the additional required limitation of “… the storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: receiving a predetermined flag which is a predetermined flag transmitted from the image processing apparatus and indicates whether or not the image processing apparatus has a FAX function, and wherein in a case where it is determined based on the predetermined flag that the image processing apparatus has the FAX function, a setting UI for making FAX settings, which is a setting UI including setting items of an extension function based on the FAX capabilities information, is displayed”. These additional features, in combination with all the other features required in the claimed invention, are neither taught nor suggested by Saigusa and Kanno.
With regard to claims 3-7, the claims are depending directly or indirectly from the independent Claim 2, each encompasses the required limitations recited in the independent claim discussed above.
Therefore, claims 2-7 are objected to.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shimada et al. (U.S. Pat/Pub No. 2023/0333792 A1, Canon) disclose an invention relates to an information processing apparatus, a control method of an information processing apparatus, and a storage medium.
The Art Unit (or Workgroup) location of your application in the USPTO has changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Art Unit 2681.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacky X. Zheng whose telephone number is (571) 270-1122. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, alt. Friday Off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached on (571) 272-3438. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACKY X ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights