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 .
This application has been examined. Claims 1-19 are pending.
The Group and/or Art Unit location of your application in the PTO has changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Group Art Unit 2175.
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.
Double Patenting
Obviousness-type double patenting over commonly-owned US 11,451,684 B2 was considered and is not applied. The claims of US 11,451,684 B2 are directed to switching among power states defined by the usability of a plurality of processor cores, with transitions triggered by reception of predetermined data (e.g., a network packet or facsimile incoming call, claims 3-4) and by a lapse of a predetermined time after execution of processing (claim 5). They do not recite, and do not render obvious, the present claims' determination of a network disconnected (offline) state, the starting of a timer in response to that determination, or the forced shut-off of the apparatus's power supply upon expiry of that timer. The conflicting claims are therefore patentably distinct.
Claim Interpretation - 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
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 claims contain the following non-structural “unit” limitations that use a generic placeholder (“unit”) coupled with functional language and unmodified by sufficient structure to perform the recited function. These limitations are therefore interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (see MPEP 2181):
• “power control unit configured to enable a switching control…” (claims 1, 11);
• “determination unit configured to determine…” (claims 1, 11);
• “switching control unit configured to perform a switching control…” (claim 7);
• “setting unit configured to set an operation start time…” (claim 12);
• “memory unit configured to store…” (claim 7);
• “operation unit configured to accept…” (claims 9, 14).
Review of the specification shows the following corresponding structure: the “power control unit” and “determination unit” correspond to the CPU 340 and/or power controller 303 (FIGS. 2-3) programmed in accordance with the algorithms of FIGS. 5-7; the “memory unit” corresponds to the HDD 106, nonvolatile memory 205, or flash disk 207; and the “operation unit” corresponds to the operation unit 105 having a touch panel and hard keys (FIG. 4). Because the specification discloses corresponding structure together with the algorithms of FIGS. 5-7, the above limitations are definite under this interpretation. If applicant does not intend to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may amend the claims to recite sufficient structure or otherwise present arguments rebutting this interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(b) 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.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7: The claim recites “store at least one of an installation date…, a production date…, and a setting date…,” and subsequently recites “validate the shutoff control in a case where the date is a predetermined reference date or later….” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the date” in the claim. Because the apparatus is required to store only “at least one of” three alternatively recited dates, it is unclear which date “the date” refers to. For purposes of this examination, “the date” is interpreted as any one of the recited stored dates.
Appropriate correction (e.g., “the stored date” or naming a specific date) is required.
Claim 11: The claim first recites “determine whether the network is in a connected state… or in a disconnected state…” and then recites “determine whether the current state is the connected state or the disconnected state.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the current state,” as no “current state” was previously set forth in claim 11 (cf. claim 1). For purposes of examination, “the current state” is interpreted as the state of the network.
Correction is required.
Claim Objection
Claim 12 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being of improper dependent form for failing to comply with applicant’s apparent intent. Claim 12 depends from claim 8 (a two-power-state apparatus) yet recites “an operation start time of the timer to a time earlier than a time at which the shutoff control is performed by a predetermined time,” a feature described in the specification only in connection with the third (deep-sleep) power state of FIG. 7 (e.g., S701, S708). It appears claim 12 was intended to depend from claim 11. Clarification or correction is required. This objection does not affect the allowable-subject-matter indication for claim 12, below.
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 t which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (“Hasegawa”) (US Pub No. 2020/0133359) in view of Hikichi et al. (“Hikichi”) (US Pub No. 2020/0412900).
In order to expedite and avoid piecemeal prosecution, the following rejection is made to the extent that the claims are understood, by considering those elements which are understood and interpreting their function in a manner which is consistent with the recited goals of the claims, and then applying the best available art.
The examiner relies on the entire teachings of Hasegawa and Hikichi references; the applicant should carefully consider the entire teachings of the above-mentioned references to better understand the examiner’s position.
In regard to claim 1, Hasegawa discloses an information processing apparatus that is connectable to a network and can take a first power state in which electric power is supplied and a second power state in which power consumption is lower than that in the first power state (as shown in Fig. 2-3, which is reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience, Hasegawa discloses image forming apparatus 1 (MFP) with communication section 17 (network + facsimile, wired or wireless); operating modes normal/standby/OFF with power increasing in that order. See ¶ [0013]-[0019]; [0023]-[0026]; (FIG. 1; FIG. 2);
PNG
media_image1.png
886
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
739
452
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the information processing apparatus comprising: a power control unit configured to enable a switching control between the first power state and the second power state (in Hasegawa, processor 11 controls mode transitions among normal/standby/OFF (FIG. 3, Acts 104-108), and a determination unit configured to determine whether a current state is a connected state in which the network is connected or a disconnected state in which the network is disconnected (in Hasegawa, processor 11 determines whether apparatus 1 “is connected with or not connected with the external device” which connected if start-able via communication section 17 (cable connected or wireless connection recognized), disconnected otherwise (FIG. 3, Act 107; FIG. 4, Act 208), wherein the determination unit is configured to determine whether the current state is the connected state or the disconnected state during switching from the first power state to the second power state by the power control unit or after completion of switching from the first power state to the second power state (in Hasegawa, determining connection status as a precondition to transitioning into the lower-power (OFF) mode (FIG. 3, Acts 106-107), and wherein the power control unit is configured to start a timer in a case where the determination unit determines that the current state is the disconnected state (in Hasegawa, a prescribed period of time governs entry into the OFF (power-off) mode (FIG. 3, Act 106; FIG. 4, Act 207), and enables a shutoff control to forcibly shut off power supply of the information processing apparatus in a case where the timer expires (in Hasegawa, when not connected, processor 11 forces the apparatus into the OFF mode which latch switch 1002 maintained OFF, Vcc2 and Vcc3 lowered so the processor no longer operates and only minimal Vcc1 remains (FIG. 3, No in Act 107; FIG. 4, No in Act 208). But Hasegawa does not expressly disclose performing that determination specifically during or just after a transition into a lower-power sleep state, starting the timer in response to (i.e., armed by) the disconnected determination. In the same field of endeavor, Hikichi expressly discloses performing that determination specifically during or just after a transition into a lower-power sleep state (as shown in Fig. 2 and 5, which is reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience, Hikichi discloses power state A (electric power supplied) and power state B with “power consumption … less than that in the power state A.” Hikichi further discloses the power supply control unit 303 / CPU 340 switch among power states (FIGS. 3-4; FIG. 5, S502-S510). Hikichi discloses determination performed during/after the transition into the lower-power sleep state (FIG. 5; determination made during the sleep transition or after its completion),
PNG
media_image3.png
970
711
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
751
534
media_image4.png
Greyscale
starting the timer in response to (i.e., armed by) the disconnected determination (in Hikichi, timer values set in the power supply control unit 303 by CPU 340, the controller executing the set operation upon timer start-up; timer-driven power transitions (FIG. 3 description FIG. 5, S503/S509). Hikichi further discloses the timer-expiry trigger and the full shut-down state in which “the relay switches of both systems are turned off” (FIG. 3 description; FIG. 5, S509 [Wingdings font/0xE0] power action).
Hasegawa and Hikichi are analogous art: both are directed to power management of a multi-function image forming apparatus and both expressly seek to reduce/minimize the apparatus’ power consumption.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Hasegawa’s network connected/disconnected determination and resulting forced power-off into Hikichi’s timer-governed, multi-state power controller - i.e., upon determining the disconnected (offline) condition during or after the transition toward the lower-power state, to start Hikichi’s timer and force the apparatus off upon expiry because doing so amounts to: following the express, shared teaching of both references to minimize MFP power consumption, which supplies the motivation; interposing Hikichi’s timer between Hasegawa’s offline determination and the forced power-off is a predictable, finite design choice that merely delays the known power-off action so as to avoid premature shutoff.
A reasonable expectation of success existed because both references operate on the same general MFP controller architecture (a CPU/power-supply control unit governing DC rails and relay switches); integrating a connection-status determination as the condition that arms the existing timer-driven power transition would have been within the ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to claim 2, Hasegawa discloses wherein an execution instruction instructing the information processing apparatus to execute a predetermined process is acceptable (Hasegawa, an external printing request (e.g., network printing/facsimile) is received and the ready state is completed before the mode transition. FIG. 3, Acts 105-107). Hikichi discloses wherein the determination unit is configured to determine whether the current state is the connected state or the disconnected state during switching to the second power state or after completion of switching to the second power state and completion of execution of the predetermined process in accordance with the execution instruction (in Hikichi, receiving a job (execution instruction) from computer 109 via LAN 108 and completing the job before the sleep-transition determination. FIG. 1; FIG. 5, S501-S504). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the invention of Hasegawa to include job-completion gating with the offline determination, as taught by Hikichi, to yield no more than the predictable result of reduced standby-power waste.
In regard to claim 3, Hasegawa discloses wherein the determination unit is configured to determine again whether the current state is the connected state or the disconnected state when the timer expires (in Hasegawa, re-determining connection status at the power-decision point, including after a power-state change/recovery. FIG. 4, Act 208). Hikichi expressly discloses wherein the power control unit is configured to enable the shutoff control in a case where it is determined that the current state is the disconnected state as a result of redetermination by the determination unit (in Hikichi, evaluating apparatus state at timer expiry before performing the power action. FIG. 5, S509). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the invention of Hasegawa to include repeating the known connection check at expiry to confirm the apparatus is still offline before forced shutoff, as taught by Hikichi, to provide a predicable safeguard against erroneous power-off.
In regard to claim 4, Hasegawa discloses Hasegawa disclose connection/interfaces (like network and facsimile) (in Hasegawa, determining connection via the communication section 17 (network and facsimile interfaces, wired or wireless). FIG. 1; Act 107). But Hasegawa does not disclose wherein the information processing apparatus is connectable to each of a wired LAN, a wireless LAN, a USB device, and a FAX device, wherein the determination unit is configured to determine that the current state is the connected state in a case where the information processing apparatus is communicably connected to at least one of the wired LAN, the wireless LAN, the USB device, and the FAX device, and determine that the current state is the disconnected state in a case where the information processing apparatus is not communicably connected to any of the wired LAN, the wireless LAN, the USB device, and the FAX device. In the same field of endeavor, Hikichi discloses the express enumeration of all four interface types (wired LAN, wireless LAN, USB device, FAX device) (in Hikichi, all four interfaces that include wired/wireless network via NIC 350, USB host controller 208, and FAX device 107. FIG. 2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the invention of Hasegawa to include aggregating enumerated interfaces from outside, as taught by Hikichi, to predictably yield connection of at least one of the four peripherals.
In regard to claim 5, Hikichi discloses wherein the power control unit is configured to start the timer, and control the operation of the timer to cancel, stop, or return to an initial state in a case where the switching from the second power state to the first power state by the power control unit is completed before the timer expires (in Hikichi, returning from the lower-power state upon a sleep-reset/restoration factor, which aborts the timer-driven shutdown. FIG. 5, S506-S507; restoration factors). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the invention of Hasegawa to include aborting/resetting the pending timer when the apparatus is reactivated, as taught by Hikichi, to yield the predictable, necessary consequence of leaving the low-power state.
In regard to claim 6, Hikichi discloses wherein the power control unit is configured to start the timer, and control the operation of the timer to cancel, stop, or return to an initial state in a case where the determination unit determines that the current state is the connected state before the timer expires (in Hikichi, resetting/stopping the timer when the apparatus is found connected before expiry. FIG. 5, S508 [Wingdings font/0xE0] S507). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the invention of Hasegawa to include if connectivity is restored before expiry, aborting the shutoff timer, as taught by Hikichi, to yield the predictable result that avoids shutting off a now-online apparatus.
In regard to claims 8, 13, Hasegawa discloses wherein the power control unit is configured not to perform the shutoff control in a case where the determination unit determines that the current state is the connected state (in Hasegawa, when connected, processor 11 transitions to standby (latch switch 1002 ON) and does not force the OFF mode. FIG. 3, Yes in Act 107).
In regard to claims 9, 14, Hikichi further discloses an operation unit configured to accept an operation of selecting valid or invalid of the shutoff control (in Hikichi, an operation unit 105 that accepts power-related settings. FIG. 1; operation unit 105). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the invention of Hasegawa to include providing a user-selectable enable/disable for a power-saving function via the existing operation panel, as taught by Hikichi, to yield a predictable use of a known UI element to give the user control over the feature.
In regard to claims 10, 15, Hasegawa discloses wherein the information processing apparatus is an image forming apparatus (in Hasegawa, apparatus 1 is an image forming apparatus/MFP. FIG. 1).
In regard to claim 11, Hasegawa discloses an information processing apparatus that is connectable to a network and can take a first power state in which electric power is supplied, a second power state in which power consumption is lower than that in the first power state (as shown in Fig. 2-3, which is reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience, Hasegawa discloses image forming apparatus 1 (MFP) with communication section 17 (network + facsimile, wired or wireless); operating modes normal/standby/OFF with power increasing in that order (FIG. 1; FIG. 2);
PNG
media_image1.png
886
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
739
452
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the information processing apparatus comprising: a power control unit configured to enable a switching control among the first power state, the second power state (in Hasegawa, processor 11 controls mode transitions among normal/standby/OFF (FIG. 3, Acts 104-108), a determination unit configured to determine whether a current state is a connected state in which the network is connected or a disconnected state in which the network is disconnected (in Hasegawa, processor 11 determines whether apparatus 1 “is connected with or not connected with the external device” which connected if start-able via communication section 17 (cable connected or wireless connection recognized), disconnected otherwise (FIG. 3, Act 107; FIG. 4, Act 208), wherein the determination unit is configured to determine whether the current state is the connected state or the disconnected state during switching from the first power state to the second power state by the power control unit or after completion of switching from the first power state to the second power state (in Hasegawa, determining connection status as a precondition to transitioning into the lower-power (OFF) mode (FIG. 3, Acts 106-107), and wherein the power control unit is configured to start a timer in a case where the determination unit determines that the current state is the disconnected state (in Hasegawa, a prescribed period of time governs entry into the OFF (power-off) mode (FIG. 3, Act 106; FIG. 4, Act 207), and enables a shutoff control to forcibly shut off power supply of the information processing apparatus in a case where the timer expires (in Hasegawa, when not connected, processor 11 forces the apparatus into the OFF mode which latch switch 1002 maintained OFF, Vcc2 and Vcc3 lowered so the processor no longer operates and only minimal Vcc1 remains (FIG. 3, No in Act 107; FIG. 4, No in Act 208). But Hasegawa does not expressly disclose the 3 power states, performing that determination specifically during or just after a transition into a lower-power sleep state, starting the timer in response to (i.e., armed by) the disconnected determination. In the same field of endeavor, Hikichi expressly discloses the 3 power states (as shown in Fig. 2 and 5, which is reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience, Hikichi discloses the three-state hierarchy. FIG. 4: power state A; power state B with power less than A; power state C (deep sleep) with power less than B. Hikichi further discloses power supply control unit 303/CPU 340 switch among power states A, B, and C (FIGS. 3-5),
PNG
media_image3.png
970
711
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
751
534
media_image4.png
Greyscale
performing that determination specifically during or just after a transition into a lower-power sleep state (in Hikichi, power state A (electric power supplied) and power state B with “power consumption … less than that in the power state A.” Hikichi further discloses the power supply control unit 303 / CPU 340 switch among power states (FIGS. 3-4; FIG. 5, S502-S510). Hikichi discloses determination performed during/after the transition into the lower-power sleep state (FIG. 5; determination made during the sleep transition or after its completion),
starting the timer in response to (i.e., armed by) the disconnected determination (in Hikichi, timer values set in the power supply control unit 303 by CPU 340, the controller executing the set operation upon timer start-up; timer-driven power transitions (FIG. 3 description FIG. 5, S503/S509). Hikichi further discloses the timer-expiry trigger and the full shut-down state in which “the relay switches of both systems are turned off” (FIG. 3 description; FIG. 5, S509 [Wingdings font/0xE0] power action).
Hasegawa and Hikichi are analogous art: both are directed to power management of a multi-function image forming apparatus and both expressly seek to reduce/minimize the apparatus’ power consumption.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Hasegawa’s network connected/disconnected determination and resulting forced power-off into Hikichi’s timer-governed, multi-state power controller - i.e., upon determining the disconnected (offline) condition during or after the transition toward the lower-power state, to start Hikichi’s timer and force the apparatus off upon expiry because doing so amounts to: following the express, shared teaching of both references to minimize MFP power consumption, which supplies the motivation; interposing Hikichi’s timer between Hasegawa’s offline determination and the forced power-off is a predictable, finite design choice that merely delays the known power-off action so as to avoid premature shutoff.
A reasonable expectation of success existed because both references operate on the same general MFP controller architecture (a CPU/power-supply control unit governing DC rails and relay switches); integrating a connection-status determination as the condition that arms the existing timer-driven power transition would have been within the ordinary skill in the art.
Independent claims 16 (method) and 18 (non-transitory computer-readable medium) recite the same operative limitations as apparatus claim 1 in method and medium form respectively. The method/apparatus/medium distinction does not impart patentability where the underlying operative steps are the same. See MPEP § 2114.
Therefore, claims 9 and 14 are rejected on the same basis and mapping as claim 1 above.
Independent claims 17 (method) and 19 (non-transitory computer-readable medium) recite the same operative limitations as apparatus claim 11 in method and medium form respectively. The method/apparatus/medium distinction does not impart patentability where the underlying operative steps are the same. See MPEP § 2114.
Therefore, claims 9 and 14 are rejected on the same basis and mapping as claim 11 above.
Examiner's note:
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passages as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 and 12 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.
The following is an Examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 7 and 12 are allowable over the prior art of record because the prior arts, cited in its entirety, or in combination, do not teach:
Claim 7: The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or reasonably suggest a memory unit that stores at least one of an installation date, a production date, or a setting date of the apparatus, together with a switching control unit that validates the shutoff control when that date is a predetermined reference date or later and invalidates the shutoff control when that date is earlier than the reference date. Neither Hasegawa nor Hikichi conditions the availability of an automatic forced power-off on a stored installation/production/setting date relative to a reference date (the specification’s firmware-update / public-installation safeguard, FIG. 6, S602).
Claim 12: The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or reasonably suggest a setting unit configured to set the operation start time of the timer to a time earlier than the time at which the shutoff control is performed by a predetermined time (the specification’s pre-expiry wireless-reconnect margin, FIG. 7, S701/S708). (See also the claim objection above regarding the dependency of claim 12.)
Conclusion
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-19 are rejected. Claims 7 and 12 are objected.
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Osawa et al. (US No. 9,291,983) disclose the image forming apparatus that turns off its power in accordance with an electric-power control signal received via the network
Hikichi et al. (US No. 11,451,684) disclose a processor having plural cores with controller switching power states based on core state.
Hikichi et al. (US No. 11,539,851) disclose an apparatus for switching a power state among a plurality of power states.
Hikichi et al. (US No. 12,177,398) disclose the image forming apparatus that executes operations after a change in power state.
Nimura et al. (US No. 5,923,919) disclose the image forming apparatus with a power shut-off device that turns off power when not operated for a predetermined time.
Kozuka et al. (US Pub No. 2017/0317980) disclose the information processing device with a network interface having a proxy response function.
Hikichi et al. (US No. 10,445,103) disclose a power control method of a printing apparatus.
Hikichi et al. (US Pub No. 2025/0008041) disclose the image forming apparatus and power control method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Raymond Phan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3630. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 6:30AM- 3:00PM. The Group Fax No. (571) 273-8300.
Communications via Internet e-mail regarding this application, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used by the applicant and should be addressed to [raymond.phan@uspto.gov].
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, Andrew Jung can be reached at (571) 270-3779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
All Internet e-mail communications will be made of record in the application file. PTO employees do not engage in Internet communications where there exists a possibility that sensitive information could be identified or exchanged unless the record includes a properly signed express waiver of the confidentiality requirements of 35 U.S.C. 122. This is more clearly set forth in the Interim Internet Usage Policy published in the Official Gazette of the Patent and Trademark on February 25, 1997 at 1195 OG 89.
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 hop://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).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC 2100 central telephone number is (571) 272-2100.
/RAYMOND N PHAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
.
Prosecution Insights