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 07/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions on 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, line 3, change “controlling driving of a focus lens to focus on the object” to “controlling driving of a focus lens to focus on the object;”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9-14, 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gum (US 2013/0258167 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gum teaches a focus control apparatus (Gum, Fig. 3) comprising:
at least one processor (Gum, Fig. 1, Processor 320, Paragraph 0046) configured to execute functions as:
a determination unit configured to determine whether an object is a moving object (Gum, Fig. 3, object motion detection module 355, Paragraph 0048); and
a focusing unit configured to control driving of a focus lens (Gum, Paragraph 0057) to focus on the object (Gum, Fig. 3, focus prioritization module 365, Paragraphs 0044 and 0049),
wherein the determination unit determines whether the object is the moving object, using a first criterion before an operation of an operation unit, and using a second criterion different from the first criterion after the operation of the operation unit (Gum, Fig. 4, Steps 410 and 445, Paragraph 0053 and 0055, A user instruction for setting the movement detection threshold changes a determination criteria for assessing whether the object is a moving object. A previously set threshold and a threshold set after a user instruction for setting the threshold are the first criterion and second criterion, respectively.),
wherein the first criterion imposes stricter conditions for determining the object as a moving object compared to the second criterion (Gum, Fig. 4, Step 410 and 445, Paragraph 0053 and 0055, The first criterion imposes a stricter condition when the threshold set by the user after the operation of the operation unit is set to a lower threshold.).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Gum teaches the focus control apparatus of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein a movement of the object in a distance direction (Gum, Paragraph 0015, The direction of the object's movement relative to an image background may be considered a distance direction. Direction of the pan of the device may be considered a distance direction.) is detected by the first and second criteria (Gum, Fig. 4, Steps 410 and 445, Paragraph 0053 and 0055, If the object motion vectors are above both the first and second criteria thresholds, movement of the object would be detected by both.).
Regarding claim 3, Gum teaches the focus control apparatus of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein whether the object is the moving object is determined based on a signal generated by photoelectrically converting an object image formed through the focus lens (Gum, Fig. 4, Steps 420-445, Paragraphs 0053-0054).
Regarding claim 4, Gum teaches the focus control apparatus of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein whether the object is the moving object is determined based on a focus detecting signal (Gum, Fig. 4, Steps 420, 435 and 460, Paragraph 0056, The first and second images are used to determine an object to focus on and are considered to be a focus detecting signal.) generated by a signal outputted from an image sensor (Gum, Fig. 3, image sensor 315, Paragraph 0046 and 0057).
Regarding claim 7, Gum teaches the focus control apparatus of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the determination unit does not determine whether the object is the moving object when a tracking area corresponding to the object is located outside a determination range (Gum, Fig. 4, step 435, Paragraph 0053, A tracking area may be considered to be the location of the object. A determination range may be considered to be the view of the camera. Objects outside the view of the camera would not be determined as the moving object.).
Regarding claim 11, Gum teaches a focus control apparatus (Gum, Fig. 3) comprising:
at least one processor (Gum, Fig. 1, Processor 320, Paragraph 0046) configured to execute functions as:
a determination unit configured to determine whether an object is a moving object (Gum, Fig. 3, object motion detection module 355, Paragraph 0048); and
a focusing unit configured to control driving of a focus lens (Gum, Paragraph 0057) to focus on the object (Gum, Fig. 3, focus prioritization module 365, Paragraphs 0044 and 0049),
wherein the determination unit determines whether the object is the moving object, using a first criterion before an operation of an operation unit, and using a second criterion different from the first criterion after the operation of the operation unit (Gum, Fig. 4, Steps 410 and 445, Paragraph 0053 and 0055, A user instruction for setting the movement detection threshold changes a determination criteria for assessing whether the object is a moving object. A previously set threshold and a threshold set after a user instruction for setting the threshold are the first criterion and second criterion, respectively.),
wherein when the object makes a first movement, it is not determined to be the moving object under the first criterion, but is determined to be the moving object under the second criterion (Gum, Fig. 4, Steps 410 and 445, Paragraph 0053 and 0055, If the second criterion is a lower threshold than the threshold of the first criterion, an object with motion vectors below the first criterion threshold but above the second criterion threshold provides for the limitation.).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Gum teaches the focus control apparatus of claim 1 (see claim 11 analysis), wherein a movement of the object is detected by the first and second criteria (Gum, Fig. 4, Steps 410 and 445, Paragraph 0053 and 0055, If the object motion vectors are above both the first and second criteria thresholds, movement of the object would be detected by both.).
Regarding claim 13, Gum teaches the focus control apparatus of claim 1 (see claim 11 analysis), wherein whether the object is the moving object is determined based on a signal generated by photoelectrically converting an object image formed through the focus lens (Gum, Fig. 4, Steps 420-445, Paragraphs 0053-0054).
Regarding claim 14, Gum teaches the focus control apparatus of claim 11 (see claim 11 analysis), wherein whether the object is the moving object is determined based on a focus detecting signal (Gum, Fig. 4, Steps 420, 435 and 460, Paragraph 0056, The first and second images are used to determine an object to focus on and are considered to be a focus detecting signal.) generated by a signal outputted from an image sensor (Gum, Fig. 3, image sensor 315, Paragraph 0046 and 0057).
Regarding claim 17, Gum teaches the focus control apparatus of claim 11 (see claim 11 analysis), wherein the determination unit does not determine whether the object is the moving object when a tracking area corresponding to the object is located outside a determination range (Gum, Fig. 4, step 435, Paragraph 0053, A tracking area may be considered to be the location of the object. A determination range may be considered to be the view of the camera. Objects outside the view of the camera would not be determined as the moving object.).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gum (US 2013/0258167 A1) in view of Cardei et al. (US 2017/0353653 A1).
Alternatively, Regarding claim 2, Gum teaches the focus control apparatus of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein a movement of the object is detected by the first and second criteria (Gum, Fig. 4, Steps 410 and 445, Paragraph 0053 and 0055, If the object motion vectors are above both the first and second criteria thresholds, movement of the object would be detected by both.)
However, Gum does not teach wherein a movement of the object in a distance direction is detected by the first and second criteria.
In reference to Cardei et al. (hereafter referred as Cardei), Cardei teaches using motion vectors to determine a movement of the object in a distance direction (Cardei, Figs. 2-5, Paragraphs 0023-0031).
These arts are analogous since they are both 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 invention of Gum with the method of detecting movement of an object in a distance direction as seen in Cardei to allow the device to detect and focus on objects moving toward or away from the camera.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gum (US 2013/0258167 A1) in view of Tsuki (US 2018/0007254 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Gum teaches the focus control apparatus of claim 4 (see claim 4 analysis). However, Gum does not teach wherein the image sensor includes a plurality of photodiodes for one microlens arranged in a horizontal direction.
In reference to Tsuki, Tsuki teaches wherein an image sensor includes a plurality of photodiodes (Tsuki, Fig. 2, photoelectric conversion portions 201a and 201b) for one microlens arranged in a horizontal direction (Tsuki, Fig. 2, microlens 202, Paragraphs 0031).
These arts are analogous since they are both 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 invention of Gum with the image sensor as seen in Tsuki to allow the device to perform focusing by phase difference detection and since it is a known alternative method of performing focusing that would provide similar and expected results.
Regarding claim 15, Gum teaches the focus control apparatus of claim 14 (see claim 14 analysis). However, Gum does not teach wherein the image sensor includes a plurality of photodiodes for one microlens arranged in a horizontal direction.
In reference to Tsuki, Tsuki teaches wherein an image sensor includes a plurality of photodiodes (Tsuki, Fig. 2, photoelectric conversion portions 201a and 201b) for one microlens arranged in a horizontal direction (Tsuki, Fig. 2, microlens 202, Paragraphs 0031).
These arts are analogous since they are both 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 invention of Gum with the image sensor as seen in Tsuki to allow the device to perform focusing by phase difference detection and since it is a known alternative method of performing focusing that would provide similar and expected results.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gum (US 2013/0258167 A1) in view of Mukasa et al. (US 2020/0139931 A1).
Alternatively, regarding claim 7, Gum teaches the focus control apparatus of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis). However, Gum does not teach wherein the determination unit does not determine whether the object is the moving object when a tracking area corresponding to the object is located outside a determination range.
In reference to Mukasa et al. (hereafter referred as Mukasa), Mukasa teaches wherein a determination unit does not determine whether an object is a moving object when a tracking area corresponding to the object is located outside a determination range (Mukasa, Fig. 12, Paragraph 0125, The location of the object in the image is a tracking area. The determination range is the range outside non-detection region 102.).
These arts are analogous since they are both 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 invention of Gum with the method of excluding areas from object motion detection as seen in Mukasa to allow the user to exclude detecting objects from certain areas of the image.
Alternatively, regarding claim 17, Gum teaches the focus control apparatus of claim 11 (see claim 11 analysis). However, Gum does not teach wherein the determination unit does not determine whether the object is the moving object when a tracking area corresponding to the object is located outside a determination range.
In reference to Mukasa et al. (hereafter referred as Mukasa), Mukasa teaches wherein a determination unit does not determine whether an object is a moving object when a tracking area corresponding to the object is located outside a determination range (Mukasa, Fig. 12, Paragraph 0125, The location of the object in the image is a tracking area. The determination range is the range outside non-detection region 102.).
These arts are analogous since they are both 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 invention of Gum with the method of excluding areas from object motion detection as seen in Mukasa to allow the user to exclude detecting objects from certain areas of the image.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gum (US 2013/0258167 A1) in view of Yamamoto (US 2011/0001870 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Gum teaches an image pickup apparatus (Gum, Fig. 3) comprising:
the focusing apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis); and
an image sensor configured to photoelectrically convert an object image formed through an optical system including the focus lens (Gum, Fig. 3, image sensor 315, Paragraph 0046 and 0057).
However, Gum does not explicitly state the focus lens is configured to move along an optical axis.
In reference to Yamamoto, Yamamoto explicitly teaches a focus lens is configured to move along an optical axis (Yamamoto, Paragraph 0021).
These arts are analogous since they are both 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 invention of Gum with the explicit teaching of focusing by moving a focus lens in along an optical axis since it is a well-known method for adjusting focus and would provide similar and expected results.
Regarding claim 18, Gum teaches an image pickup apparatus (Gum, Fig. 3) comprising:
the focusing apparatus according to claim 11 (see claim 11 analysis); and
an image sensor configured to photoelectrically convert an object image formed through an optical system including the focus lens (Gum, Fig. 3, image sensor 315, Paragraph 0046 and 0057).
However, Gum does not explicitly state the focus lens is configured to move along an optical axis.
In reference to Yamamoto, Yamamoto explicitly teaches a focus lens is configured to move along an optical axis (Yamamoto, Paragraph 0021).
These arts are analogous since they are both 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 invention of Gum with the explicit teaching of focusing by moving a focus lens in along an optical axis since it is a well-known method for adjusting focus and would provide similar and expected results.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7-11 and 17-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5 and 12 of U.S. Patent No.11,496,663. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
The similar limitations of claims 1, 7-11 and 17-20 of the instant application and claims 1, 5 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,496,663 are compared as shown in the table below.
Application 19/257727
Patent 11,496,663
Claim 1: A focus control apparatus comprising:
at least one processor configured to execute functions as:
a determination unit configured to determine whether an object is a moving object; and
a focusing unit configured to control driving of a focus lens to focus on the object,
wherein the determination unit determines whether the object is the moving object, using a first criterion before an operation of an operation unit, and using a second criterion different from the first criterion after the operation of the operation unit,
wherein the first criterion imposes stricter conditions for determining the object as a moving object compared to the second criterion.
Claim 1: A focusing apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to function as a determination unit and a focusing unit,
wherein the determination unit configured to determine whether a subject is a moving subject,
wherein the focusing unit configured to control driving of a focus lens so that focus is adjusted to the subject,
wherein the determination unit determines whether the subject is the moving subject, using a first threshold before an operation of an operation unit, and using a second threshold different from the first threshold after the operation of the operation unit.
Claim 1 of Application No. 19/257727 contains the limitations of claim 1 of Patent 11,496,663. Further, determination using a first threshold and a second threshold different from the first threshold is similar to and not patentably distinct from determination using a first criterion and a second criterion where one criterion is stricter than the other. Claims 9 and 10 of Application No. 19/257727 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 in view of claim 1 of Patent 11,496,663.
Claim 7: The focus control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the determination unit does not determine whether the object is the moving object when a tracking area corresponding to the object is located outside a determination range.
Claim 5: The focusing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit sets a determination range used to determine whether the subject is the moving subject, and does not determine whether the subject is the moving subject when the subject is located outside the determination range.
Claim 7 of Application No. 19/257727 contains similar limitations of claim 5 of Patent 11,496,663.
Claim 8: An image pickup apparatus comprising: the focusing apparatus according to claim l; and an image sensor configured to photoelectrically convert an object image formed through an optical system including the focus lens configured to move along an optical axis.
Claim 12: An image pickup apparatus comprising: the focusing apparatus according to claim 1; and an image sensor configured to photoelectrically convert a subject image formed through an optical system including the focus lens configured to move along an optical axis and to output an imaging signal and a focus detecting signal.
Claim 8 of Application No. 19/257727 contains similar limitations of claim 12 of Patent 11,496,663.
Claim 11: A focus control apparatus comprising:
at least one processor configured to execute functions as:
a determination unit configured to determine whether an object is a moving object; and
a focusing unit configured to control driving of a focus lens to focus on the object,
wherein the determination unit determines whether the object is the moving object, using a first criterion before an operation of an operation unit, and using a second criterion different from the first criterion after the operation of the operation unit, wherein when the object makes a first movement, it is not determined to be the moving object under the first criterion, but is determined to be the moving object under the second criterion.
Claim 1: A focusing apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to function as a determination unit and a focusing unit,
wherein the determination unit configured to determine whether a subject is a moving subject,
wherein the focusing unit configured to control driving of a focus lens so that focus is adjusted to the subject,
wherein the determination unit determines whether the subject is the moving subject, using a first threshold before an operation of an operation unit, and using a second threshold different from the first threshold after the operation of the operation unit.
Claim 11 of Application No. 19/257727 contains the limitations of claim 1 of Patent 11,496,663. Further, determination using a first threshold and a second threshold different from the first threshold is similar to and not patentably distinct from determination using a first criterion and a second criterion where the determination may meet the second criterion but not the first criterion. Claims 19 and 20 of Application No. 19/257727 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 11 in view of claim 1 of Patent 11,496,663.
Claim 17: The focus control apparatus of claim 11, wherein the determination unit does not determine whether the object is the moving object when a tracking area corresponding to the object is located outside a determination range.
Claim 5: The focusing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit sets a determination range used to determine whether the subject is the moving subject, and does not determine whether the subject is the moving subject when the subject is located outside the determination range.
Claim 17 of Application No. 19/257727 contains similar limitations of claim 5 of Patent 11,496,663.
Claim 18: An image pickup apparatus comprising: the focusing apparatus according to claim 11; and an image sensor configured to photoelectrically convert an object image formed through an optical system including the focus lens configured to move along an optical axis.
Claim 12: An image pickup apparatus comprising: the focusing apparatus according to claim 1; and an image sensor configured to photoelectrically convert a subject image formed through an optical system including the focus lens configured to move along an optical axis and to output an imaging signal and a focus detecting signal.
Claim 18 of Application No. 19/257727 contains similar limitations of claim 12 of Patent 11,496,663.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 16 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 allowance:
With regard to claim 6, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious:
“The focus control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the focusing unit performs a first focusing, which continuously performs the focusing, and a second focusing, which performs the focusing once, and wherein the focusing unit performs the first focusing during holding the operation of the operation unit when the determination unit determines that the object is the moving object before the operation of the operation unit, wherein, when the determination unit does not determine that the object is the moving object before the operation of the operation unit, the focusing unit performs the second focusing according to the operation of the operation unit, when the determination unit determines that the object is the moving object during holding the operation of the operation unit, the focusing unit performs the first focusing.”
With regard to claim 16, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious:
“The focus control apparatus of claim 11, wherein the focusing unit performs a first focusing, which continuously performs the focusing, and a second focusing, which performs the focusing once, and wherein the focusing unit performs the first focusing during holding the operation of the operation unit when the determination unit determines that the object is the moving object before the operation of the operation unit, wherein, when the determination unit does not determine that the object is the moving object before the operation of the operation unit, the focusing unit performs the second focusing according to the operation of the operation unit, when the determination unit determines that the object is the moving object during holding the operation of the operation unit, the focusing unit performs the first focusing.”
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