DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/27/2025 and 09/16/2025 is in compliance with the provisions on 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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: “a storage unit “, “a detection unit” and “a control unit” in claims 1-13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4-5, 7, 11 and 13 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the predetermined imaging area" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5, 7, 11 and 13 are rejected as being dependent on claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Divakara (US 2023/0143934 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Divakara teaches an image processing device comprising:
a storage unit (Divakara, Fig. 1, memory 14, Paragraph 0019) configured to store table information (Divakara, Paragraph 0021, Table 1) in which at least imaging area identification information for identifying imaging areas of a camera of which an imaging area is changeable (Divakara, Paragraph 0021-0022, the position of the drone is a changeable imaging area of the camera.) and detection program identification information for identifying detection programs for detecting a predetermined object from an image captured by the camera are correlated (Divakara, Paragraph 0021-0022, The video analytics algorithm is the for identifying detection programs for detecting predetermined objects.); and
a detection unit configured to perform a process of identifying a detection program corresponding to an imaging area of the cameras using the table information stored in the storage unit and detecting the object from the image captured by the camera using the identified detection program (Divakara, Fig. 1, Controller 22, Paragraphs 0020-0022 and 0024).
Claims 14-15 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Divakara teaches the image processing device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), further comprising:
a control unit configured to instruct the camera to set the imaging area of the camera to a predetermined imaging area (Divakara, Paragraphs 0017 and 0021),
wherein the detection unit identifies the detection program using the table information on the basis of the imaging area identification information for identifying the predetermined imaging area set by the control unit (Divakara, Paragraph 0022).
Regarding claim 4, Divakara teaches the image processing device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein, when the camera sets the imaging area to the predetermined imaging area, the detection unit identifies the detection program using the table information on the basis of the imaging area identification information for identifying the predetermined imaging area transmitted from the camera (Divakara, Paragraphs 0021-0022).
Claim(s) 1-5 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ise (US 2024/0098356 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ise teaches an image processing device comprising:
a storage unit (Ise, Fig. 1, Storage unit 150, Paragraph 0061) configured to store table information (Ise, Fig. 3, Paragraph 0061) in which at least imaging area identification information for identifying imaging areas of a camera of which an imaging area is changeable (Ise, Fig. 3, drive position 302, zoom position 303 and analysis region 304, Paragraph 0061-0063) and detection program identification information for identifying detection programs for detecting a predetermined object from an image captured by the camera are correlated (Ise, Fig. 3, analysis processing function 305 Paragraph 0063); and
a detection unit configured to perform a process of identifying a detection program corresponding to an imaging area of the cameras using the table information stored in the storage unit and detecting the object from the image captured by the camera using the identified detection program (Ise, Fig. 1, analysis processing unit 160, Paragraphs 0033, 0053, 0059 and 0081).
Claims 14-15 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Ise teaches the image processing device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), further comprising:
a control unit configured to instruct the camera to set the imaging area of the camera to a predetermined imaging area (Ise, Fig. 1, Control unit 130, Paragraph 0052),
wherein the detection unit identifies the detection program using the table information on the basis of the imaging area identification information for identifying the predetermined imaging area set by the control unit (Ise, Fig. 3, Paragraphs 0059 and 0081).
Regarding claim 3, Ise teaches the image processing device according to claim 2 (see claim 2 analysis), wherein the storage unit stores imaging schedule information in which at least imaging time information for defining a time at which an image is captured by the camera and the imaging area identification information are correlated (Ise, Fig. 3, preset patrol condition 306, Paragraphs 0054 and 0064), and
wherein the control unit instructs the camera on the basis of the imaging schedule information stored in the storage unit (Ise, Fig. 3, preset patrol condition 306, Paragraphs 0054 and 0064).
Regarding claim 4, Ise teaches the image processing device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein, when the camera sets the imaging area to the predetermined imaging area, the detection unit identifies the detection program using the table information on the basis of the imaging area identification information for identifying the predetermined imaging area transmitted from the camera (Ise, Fig. 3, Paragraphs 0055-0059 and 0081).
Regarding claim 5, Ise teaches the image processing device according to claim 4 (see claim 4 analysis), further comprising:
a control unit (Ise, Fig. 1, Control unit 130, Paragraph 0052) configured to cause the camera to set image schedule information in which at least imaging time information for defining a time at which an image is captured by the camera and the imaging area identification information are correlated (Ise, Fig. 3, preset patrol condition 306, Paragraphs 0054 and 0064).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Divakara (US 2023/0143934 A1) in view of Yu (CN 105072402 A, Translation provided).
Regarding claim 3, Divakara teaches the image processing device according to claim 2 (see claim 2 analysis). However, Divakara does not teach wherein the storage unit stores imaging schedule information in which at least imaging time information for defining a time at which an image is captured by the camera and the imaging area identification information are correlated, and wherein the control unit instructs the camera on the basis of the imaging schedule information stored in the storage unit.
In reference to Yu, Yu teaches stores imaging schedule information in which at least imaging time information for defining a time at which an image is captured by the camera and the imaging area identification information are correlated, and wherein the control unit instructs the camera on the basis of the imaging schedule information stored in the storage unit (Yu, Page 4, line 8- Page 5, line 9).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to monitoring areas with robotic devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Divakara with the teaching of scheduling information to change the imaging area of the image processing device as seen in Yu to allow a scheduled time for capturing the images at the predetermined imaging areas.
Claim 5 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Divakara (US 2023/0143934 A1) ) in view of Yu (CN 105072402 A, Translation provided) in view of Bessou (US 2019/0098196 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Divakara and Yu teaches the image processing device according to claim 3 (see claim 3 analysis). However, the combination of Divakara and Yu does not teach wherein the control unit performs control such that imaging conditions of the camera are changed according to the image captured by the camera.
In reference to Bessou, Bessou teaches wherein the control unit performs control such that imaging conditions of the camera are changed according to the image captured by the camera (Bessou, Paragraphs 0017-0020).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Divakara and Yu with the teaching of changing imaging conditions according to the image as seen in Bessou to allow the device to capture an image with proper exposure.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 10.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ise (US 2024/0098356 A1) in view of Kinno et al. (US 2020/0242541 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Ise teaches the image processing device according to claim 3 (see claim 3 analysis), wherein the table information is information in which the imaging area identification information, and the detection program identification information are correlated (Ise, Fig. 3, Elements 302-305),
wherein the imaging schedule information is information in which the imaging time information and the imaging area identification information are correlated (Ise, Fig. 3, Elements 302-304 and 306).
However, Ise does not teach wherein the table information is information in which camera identification information for identifying a plurality of cameras, wherein the imaging schedule information is information in which the imaging time information, the camera identification information, and the imaging area identification information are correlated, and wherein the detection unit and the control unit identify the camera using the camera identification information.
In reference to Kinno et al. (hereafter referred as Kinno), Kinno teaches wherein the table information is information in which camera identification information for identifying a plurality of cameras (Kinno, Fig. 4, Camera ID 411, Paragraph 0067) and the imaging area identification information are correlated (Kinno, Fig. 4, camera position 413, Paragraph 0067),
wherein the imaging schedule information is information in which the imaging time information (Kinno, Fig. 4, Timing 412, Paragraph 0067), the camera identification information (Kinno, Fig. 4, Camera ID 411, Paragraph 0067), and the imaging area identification information are correlated (Kinno, Fig. 4, camera position 413, Paragraph 0067), and
wherein the control unit identify the camera using the camera identification information (Kinno, Paragraph 0067).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to controlling monitoring cameras. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Ise with the teaching of using multiple cameras controlled by single information processing apparatus using camera identification information as seen in Kinno to allow for viewing other areas of a location. Further, the camera identification information, the imaging area identification information, and the detection program identification information would be correlated since imaging area identification information and detection program identification information would be provided for each camera and the detection unit and the control unit would identify the camera using the camera identification information.
Claim 7 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ise (US 2024/0098356 A1) in view of Takatsuka et al. (US 2021/0256286 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Ise teaches the image processing device according to claim 3 (see claim 3 analysis). However, Ise does not teach wherein the control unit changes the imaging time information according to a state of the object detected by the detection unit.
In reference to Takatsuka et al. (hereafter referred as Takatsuka), Takatsuka teaches changing an imaging time information according to a state of the object detected by a detection unit (Takatsuka, Paragraphs 0693-0694).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to controlling monitoring cameras. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Ise with the teaching of changing an imaging time information according to a state of the object detected by the detection unit as seen in Takatsuka to adaptively increase or decrease the amount of processed data without degrading the object detection performance (Takatsuka, Paragraph 0694).
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 12.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petruk (US 2018/0253619 A1) in view of Walli et al. (US 2022/0300747 A1) in view of Takami (US 2021/0092303 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Petruk teaches an image processing device comprising:
a storage unit (Petruk, Fig. 1, Storage 100, Paragraph 0018),
identifying imaging areas of a camera of which an imaging area is changeable (Petruk, Fig. 2, Block 204, Paragraphs 0017, 0032 and 0040);
a detection unit configured to perform detecting the object from the image captured by the camera using a detection program (Petruk, Fig. 2, Blocks 206-210, Paragraphs 0033-0035).
However, Petruk does not teach a storage unit configured to store table information in which at least imaging area identification information for identifying imaging areas of a camera of which an imaging area is changeable and detection program identification information for identifying detection programs for detecting a predetermined object from an image captured by the camera are correlated; and a detection unit configured to perform a process of identifying a detection program corresponding to an imaging area of the cameras using the table information stored in the storage unit and detecting the object using the identified detection program.
In reference to Walli et al. (hereafter referred as Walli), Walli teaches correlating imaging area identification information for identifying imaging areas of a camera of which an imaging area is changeable (Walli, Fig. 3, R.O.I. 304-1 and 304-2, Paragraph 0058) and detection program identification information for identifying detection programs for detecting a predetermined object from an image captured by the camera (Walli, Fig. 3, image processing model coordinator 330, image processing model 342-1 and 342-2, Paragraphs 0058-0062); and
a detection unit configured to perform a process of identifying a detection program corresponding to an imaging area of the cameras using the information and detecting the object using the identified detection program (Walli, Fig. 3, image processing model coordinator 330, image processing model 342-1 and 342-2, Paragraphs 0058-0062).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to reading instrumentation information from camera images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Petruk with the method of using different image processing models based on the type of instrumentation as seen in Walli to allow the device to process different types of instrumentation.
However, the combination of Petruk and Walli does not teach a storage unit configured to store table information in which at least imaging area identification information for identifying imaging areas of a camera of which an imaging area is changeable and detection program identification information for identifying detection programs for detecting a predetermined object from an image captured by the camera are correlated.
In reference to Takami, Takami teaches a storage unit configured to store table information in which at least imaging area identification information for identifying imaging areas of a camera of which an imaging area is changeable (Takami, Fig. 5, detection region and/or PTZ value, Paragraphs 0046 and 0051-0052) and detection program identification information for identifying detection programs for detecting a predetermined object from an image captured by the camera are correlated (Takami, Fig. 5, Paragraphs 0034 and 0050, The detection rule is considered to be the detection program since the detection rules are for object detection.).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to detecting objects in an image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Petruk and Walli with the teaching of storing a table information correlation the imaging area identification information and detection program identification information as seen in Takami quickly determine the type of detection for the imaging area or allow for user control for the type of detection for the imaging area.
Claims 14-15 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Petruk, Walli and Takami teaches the image processing device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), further comprising:
a control unit configured to instruct the camera to set the imaging area of the camera to a predetermined imaging area (Petruk, Fig. 2, Block 204, Paragraphs 0017, 0032 and 0040),
wherein the detection unit identifies the detection program using the table information on the basis of the imaging area identification information for identifying the predetermined imaging area set by the control unit (Walli, Fig. 3, image processing model coordinator 330, image processing model 342-1 and 342-2, Paragraphs 0058-0062, Takami, Fig. 5, Paragraphs 0034 and 0050).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Petruk, Walli and Takami teaches the image processing device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein, when the camera sets the imaging area to the predetermined imaging area, the detection unit identifies the detection program using the table information on the basis of the imaging area identification information for identifying the predetermined imaging area transmitted from the camera (Takami, Fig. 5, Paragraphs 0034 and 0050).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petruk (US 2018/0253619 A1) in view of Walli et al. (US 2022/0300747 A1) in view of Takami (US 2021/0092303 A1) in view of Weinmann et al. (US 2014/0347482 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Petruk, Walli and Takami teaches the image processing device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis). However, the combination of Petruk, Walli and Takami does not teach wherein the detection unit performs a preliminary process on an image captured by the camera before performing the process of detecting the object from the image captured by the camera using the identified detection program.
In reference to Weinman et al. (hereafter referred as Weinmann), Weinmann teaches performs a preliminary process on an image captured by the camera (Weinmann, Fig. 8, Steps 800-820, Fig. 9, Steps 900-9020, Paragraphs 0074-0077) before performing the process of detecting the object from the image captured by the camera using a detection program (Weinmann, Fig. 9, Steps 940-960, Paragraphs 0079-0081)
These arts are analogous since they are all related to reading instrumentation information from camera images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Petruk, Walli and Takami with the teaching of performing a preliminary process on the captured image according to the object's location as seen in Weinmann to capture a clear image of the object of interest.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami and Weinmann teaches the image processing device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the table information is information in which the imaging area identification information and the detection program identification information and are correlated (Walli, Fig. 3, image processing model coordinator 330, image processing model 342-1 and 342-2, Paragraphs 0058-0062, Takami, Fig. 5, Paragraphs 0034 and 0050);
preliminary process identification information for identifying the preliminary process are correlated, and wherein the detection unit performs the preliminary process based on the imaging area of the camera using the preliminary process identification information (Weinmann, Paragraphs 0071-0072, feature mask 725 is used in spot metering (preliminary process).).
However, the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami and Weinman does not teach wherein the table information is information in which the imaging area identification information, the detection program identification information and the preliminary process identification information and are correlated.
In reference to Takami, Takami teaches wherein the table information is information in which the imaging area identification information and processing information and are correlated (Takami, Fig. 5, Paragraphs 0034 and 0050).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami and Weinman to further store the preliminary process identification information in a correlated manner in the table since the preliminary process identification information is further related as processing information for a respective object/image area.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY JASON CHIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1312. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571) 272-7406. 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.
/WESLEY J CHIU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights