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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings received on 1/29/2025 are accepted for examination purposes.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/29/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. 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:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “reading section” and “control section” in claims 1-9 and 11-15.
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.
Reading section is configured with a plurality of optical sensors aligned in a main scanning direction [Applicant’s Specification: par 0026]
Control section may be configured from one or more dedicated hardware circuits such as an ASIC, CPU and a memory, such as a RAM and ROM [Applicant’s Specification: par 0021, 0032]
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 § 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, 4, 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sei (US-2009/0244586) in view of Hamashima (US-2022/0166893).
As to Claim 1, Sei teaches ‘An image reading system comprising: a transport section that transports documents one by one from a batch of documents; a reading section that reads documents [par 0026, 0037, 0058 – ADF is connected to the scanner unit and scans in order documents in sheet units fed from the ADF]; and a control section, wherein the control section counts documents that match the target condition based on image data of the documents read by the reading section and causes the display section to display the number of documents that match the target condition [Fig 4A, par 0059-0065 – ASIC performs count-up of the maintenance counter by counting the number of all scanned pages regardless of whether a scanner document is a blank page (i.e., target condition) and displays a total number of scanned pages and the number of pages determined as blank pages]’.
Sei does not disclose expressly ‘a display section that displays a setting screen by which a target condition, which is a condition for a document that is to be a reading target, is set.’
Hamashima teaches ‘a display section that displays a setting screen by which a target condition, which is a condition for a document that is to be a reading target, is set [Fig 4, par 0080 – a first setting screen for selecting ON and OFF of a blank paper (i.e., target condition) removal function by determining whether the image of the document bundle D that has been read is a blank paper document];’.
Sei and Hamashima are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data reading systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a first setting screen, as taught by Hamashima. The motivation for doing so would have been to enhancing the function of the image reading apparatus allow a user to enable different functions when blank paper is detected. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hamashima with Sei to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
As to Claim 4, Sei teaches ‘wherein the target condition includes a blank paper condition that excludes blank paper documents and the control section counts documents based on the blank paper condition [Fig 4A, par 0059-0065 – ASIC performs count-up of the maintenance counter by counting the number of all scanned pages regardless of whether a scanner document is a blank page and displays a total number of scanned pages and the number of pages determined as blank pages and removed]’.
As to Claim 12, Sei teaches ‘wherein in a total count mode that counts documents without referring to the target condition, the control section causes the display section to display the number of counted documents [Fig 4A, par 0059-0065 – ASIC performs count-up of the maintenance counter by counting the number of all scanned pages regardless of whether a scanner document is a blank page and displays a total number of scanned pages and the number of pages determined as blank pages and removed]’.
As to Claim 14, Sei teaches ‘An image reading device comprising: a transport section that transports documents one by one from a batch of documents; a reading section that reads documents [par 0026, 0037, 0058 – ADF is connected to the scanner unit and scans in order documents in sheet units fed from the ADF]; and a control section, wherein the control section counts documents that match the target condition based on image data of the documents read by the reading section and causes the display section to display the number of documents that match the target condition [Fig 4A, par 0059-0065 – ASIC performs count-up of the maintenance counter by counting the number of all scanned pages regardless of whether a scanner document is a blank page (i.e., target condition) and displays a total number of scanned pages and the number of pages determined as blank pages]’.
Sei does not disclose expressly ‘a display section that displays a setting screen by which a target condition, which is a condition for a document that is to be a reading target, is set.’
Hamashima teaches ‘a display section that displays a setting screen by which a target condition, which is a condition for a document that is to be a reading target, is set; [Fig 4, par 0080 – a first setting screen for selecting ON and OFF of a blank paper (i.e., target condition) removal function by determining whether the image of the document bundle D that has been read is a blank paper document];’.
Sei and Hamashima are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data reading systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a first setting screen, as taught by Hamashima. The motivation for doing so would have been to enhancing the function of the image reading apparatus allow a user to enable different functions when blank paper is detected. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hamashima with Sei to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
As to Claim 15, Sei teaches ‘A control device connected to an image reading device that includes a transport section that transports documents one by one from a batch of documents and a reading section that reads documents [Fig 2 (2, 10, 36), par 0026, 0037, 0040-0041, 0058 – MFP includes an ASIC, a scanner unit and an ADF is connected to the scanner unit and scans in order documents in sheet units fed from the ADF], the control device comprising: a control section configured to communicate with the image reading device, wherein the control section counts documents that match the target condition based on image data of the documents read by the reading section and causes the display section to display the number of documents that match the target condition [Fig 4A, par 0059-0065 – ASIC performs count-up of the maintenance counter by counting the number of all scanned pages regardless of whether a scanner document is a blank page (i.e., target condition) and displays a total number of scanned pages and the number of pages determined as blank pages]’.
Sei does not disclose expressly ‘a display section that displays a setting screen by which a target condition, which is a condition for a document that is to be a reading target, is set.’
Hamashima teaches ‘a display section that displays a setting screen by which a target condition, which is a condition for a document that is to be a reading target, is set [Fig 4, par 0080 – a first setting screen for selecting ON and OFF of a blank paper (i.e., target condition) removal function by determining whether the image of the document bundle D that has been read is a blank paper document];’.
Sei and Hamashima are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data reading systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a first setting screen, as taught by Hamashima. The motivation for doing so would have been to enhancing the function of the image reading apparatus allow a user to enable different functions when blank paper is detected. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hamashima with Sei to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Claim(s) 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sei in view of Hamashima and further in view of Nakamura et al. (US-2012/0081761).
As to Claim 2, Sei in view of Hamashima teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claim 1. Sei in view of Hamashima does not disclose expressly ‘wherein if the control section detects a document that does not match the target condition based on the image data, then the control section causes display of a notification screen that indicates that a document that does not match the target condition was detected’.
Nakamura teaches ‘wherein if the control section detects a document that does not match the target condition based on the image data, then the control section causes display of a notification screen that indicates that a document that does not match the target condition was detected [Figs 5A, 5B, 8, par 0031-0038, 0040, 0052 – display screen notifying a user an existence of a blank document sheet and a message displaying an instruction for a user to automatically set blank sheet determination threshold value, manual setting or setting the blank sheet determination threshold value to a blank sheet determination threshold value]’.
Sei in view of Hamashima are analogous art with Nakamura because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data reading systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a display screen for displaying messages, as taught by Nakamura. The motivation for doing so would have been to allowing a user to quickly notice the existence of a blank document sheet or find out that the document sheet has erroneously been placed upside down. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nakamura with Sei in view of Hamashima to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
As to Claim 10, Nakamura teaches ‘wherein the notification screen displays a detection factor for the document that was detected as not matching the target condition [Figs 5A, 5B, 8, par 0031-0038, 0040, 0052 – display screen notifying a user an existence of a blank document sheet, a pixel number display section including a blank sheet detection line (i.e., detection factor), and a message displaying an instruction for a user to automatically set blank sheet determination threshold value, manual setting or setting the blank sheet determination threshold value to a blank sheet determination threshold value]’.
Sei in view of Hamashima are analogous art with Nakamura because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data reading systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a display screen for displaying messages, as taught by Nakamura. The motivation for doing so would have been to allowing a user to quickly notice the existence of a blank document sheet or find out that the document sheet has erroneously been placed upside down. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nakamura with Sei in view of Hamashima to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Claim(s) 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sei in view of Hamashima, Nakamura et al. and further in view of Arai (US-2009/0080033).
As to Claim 3, Sei in view of Hamashima and further in view of Nakamura teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in dependent claim 2. Sei in view of Hamashima and Nakamura does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the notification screen is a screen that asks whether or not to count a document that does not match the target condition as a document that matches the target condition and if it is selected on the notification screen to count the document that did not match the target condition, then the control section counts the document as a document that matches the target condition’, although Nakamura teaches displaying a message “blank sheet detection line automatic calculation 0:minimum, 1:average, 2:trash." And when “2” button has been pressed, then detecting or more numbers of pixels that is exceeding a trash-data determination threshold value to ultimately automatically determining a page is to be counted as a blank page [par 0040-0047].
Arai in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the notification screen is a screen that asks whether or not to count a document that does not match the target condition as a document that matches the target condition and if it is selected on the notification screen to count the document that did not match the target condition, then the control section counts the document as a document that matches the target condition [Figs 6, 7, par 0058-0060 – when it is determined that a scanned document is a blank sheet, displaying a message to a user whether to store (i.e., count) or delete the blank sheet, where scanning is suspended until a user selects an option]’.
Sei in view of Hamashima and Nakamura are analogous art with Arai because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data reading systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include displaying whether to store or delete a blank sheet, as taught by Arai. The motivation for doing so would have been to making it possible for a user to confirm whether the document is a blank sheet every time the document is scanned from the operations panel, providing a user-friendly image processing apparatus can be achieved. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Arai with Sei in view of Hamashima and Nakamura to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
As to Claim 11, Arai in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the notification screen is a screen that asks whether or not to count a document that does not match the target condition as a document that matches the target condition, when the control section detects a document that does not match the target condition, the control section causes the transport section to stop and then causes the display section to display the notification screen, and if it is selected on the notification screen to count the document that did not match the target condition, then the control section counts the document as a document that matches the target condition [Figs 6, 7, par 0058-0060 – when it is determined that a scanned document is a blank sheet, displaying a message to a user whether to store (i.e., count) or delete the blank sheet, where scanning is suspended until a user selects an option]’.
Sei in view of Hamashima and Nakamura are analogous art with Arai because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data reading systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include displaying whether to store or delete a blank sheet, as taught by Arai. The motivation for doing so would have been to making it possible for a user to confirm whether the document is a blank sheet every time the document is scanned from the operations panel, providing a user-friendly image processing apparatus can be achieved. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Arai with Sei in view of Hamashima and Nakamura to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Claim(s) 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sei in view of Hamashima and further in view of Numata (US-2015/0116783).
As to Claim 5, Sei in view of Hamashima teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claim 1. Sei in view of Hamashima does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the target condition includes a background color condition that excludes documents of predetermined background color and the control section counts documents based on the background color condition’.
Numata teaches ‘wherein the target condition includes a background color condition that excludes documents of predetermined background color and the control section counts documents based on the background color condition [par 0033, 0049-0050, 0067, 0070, 0112 – a base color modification flag that determines a base color of the read image, that is, the background color of the read image representing a ground color of the original sheet M and displaying the page number]’.
Sei in view of Hamashima are analogous art with Numata because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data reading systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include modification flags, as taught by Numata. The motivation for doing so would have been to enabling a user to ascertain a content of the image process which has been performed on read images via the output portion such as the display. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Numata with Sei in view of Hamashima to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
As to Claim 6, Numata teaches ‘wherein the target condition includes a color condition that excludes color documents or monochrome documents and the control section counts documents based on the color condition [par 0033, 0049-0051, 0101 – image processing may also include, for example, a process that corrects color images to become monochrome images]’.
Sei in view of Hamashima are analogous art with Numata because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data reading systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include modification flags, as taught by Numata. The motivation for doing so would have been to enabling a user to ascertain a content of the image process which has been performed on read images via the output portion such as the display. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Numata with Sei in view of Hamashima to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
As to Claim 7, Numata teaches ‘wherein the target condition includes a reference condition that excludes documents whose number of pixels for each of RGB in the image data is outside a predetermined range with respect to reference data and the control section counts documents based on the reference condition [par 0033, 0049-0051, 0067, 0070, 0112 – a base color modification flag that determines a base color of the read image, that is, the background color of the read image representing a ground color of the original sheet M based on a histogram of color densities from all pixels of the read image, where it is well known a histogram of a scanned image typically shows red, green, and blue color channels]’.
Sei in view of Hamashima are analogous art with Numata because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data reading systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include modification flags, as taught by Numata. The motivation for doing so would have been to enabling a user to ascertain a content of the image process which has been performed on read images via the output portion such as the display. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Numata with Sei in view of Hamashima to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
As to Claim 8, Numata teaches ‘wherein the target condition includes a size condition that excludes documents other than a predetermined size and the control section counts documents based on the size condition [par 0047, 0101, 0103 – determines orientation of the read image, where size of the read image will be taken to match the size of the original sheet that was read]’.
Sei in view of Hamashima are analogous art with Numata because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data reading systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include modification flags, as taught by Numata. The motivation for doing so would have been to enabling a user to ascertain a content of the image process which has been performed on read images via the output portion such as the display. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Numata with Sei in view of Hamashima to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sei in view of Hamashima and further in view of Yoshida (US-8,849,033).
As to Claim 9, Sei in view of Hamashima teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claim 1. Sei in view of Hamashima does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the target condition includes a page number condition that excludes documents with no page number and the control section counts documents based on the page number condition’.
Yoshida teaches ‘wherein the target condition includes a page number condition that excludes documents with no page number and the control section counts documents based on the page number condition [col 14, lines 20-52 – determines if a page number is detected]’.
Sei in view of Hamashima are analogous art with Yoshida because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data reading systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include detecting page numbers, as taught by Yoshida. The motivation for doing so would have been to detecting page reading errors, such as multi-feed errors, while reducing the load on the user for setting regions for page recognition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yoshida with Sei in view of Hamashima to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sei in view of Hamashima and further in view of Sturgeon et al. (US-2002/0186424).
As to Claim 13, Sei in view of Hamashima teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claim 1. Sei in view of Hamashima does not disclose expressly ‘wherein after counting documents without referring to the target condition, in a collation mode where the total number of documents counted this time is collated with the total number of documents counted in the total count mode, if the total number of documents counted this time is not the same as the total number of documents counted in the total count mode, then the control section causes the display section to display that the total number of documents counted this time is not the same as the total number of documents counted in the total count mode’.
Sturgeon in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein after counting documents without referring to the target condition, in a collation mode where the total number of documents counted this time is collated with the total number of documents counted in the total count mode, if the total number of documents counted this time is not the same as the total number of documents counted in the total count mode, then the control section causes the display section to display that the total number of documents counted this time is not the same as the total number of documents counted in the total count mode [par 0038, 0040-0042 – performing a comparison of the total number of pages scanned in the batch job with a desired or anticipated number of pages and may perform a collating process without requiring that all pages be identified to then generate a user alarm or notification include opening full-size or reduced reproductions of the scanned pages, permitting the viewer to verify that all pages are properly scanned and collated]’.
Sei in view of Hamashima are analogous art with Sturgeon because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data reading systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a collating process, as taught by Sturgeon. The motivation for doing so would have been to a novel technique for analyzing and organizing scanned pages to detect erroneously fed or scanned pages and to place the scanned pages in a desired order with a minimal degree of operator intervention with an automatic collating process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sturgeon with Sei in view of Hamashima to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Publication No. 2009/0244586
b. US Publication No. 2022/0166893
c. US Publication No. 2012/0081761
d. US Publication No. 2009/0080033
e. US Publication No. 2015/0116783
f. US Patent No. 8,849,033
g. US Publication No. 2002/0186424
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
h. US Publication No. 2025/0252768
i. US Publication No. 2013/0027756
US Publication No. 2010/0002259
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA J CATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 830-530.
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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/MIYA J CATO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights