IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Application of:
`
`Pirim
`
`Docket No.:
`
`8042-2-1
`
`Application No.:
`
`11/676,926
`
`Examiner:
`
`Seth MANAV
`
`Patent No.:
`
`7,650,015
`
`Art Unit:
`
`2624
`
`Filed:
`
`02-20-2007
`
`Confirmation No.:
`
`9051
`
`
`
`IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD
`For:
`
`
`Commissioner for Patents,
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`FOURTH REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PETITION DECISION
`
`Sir:
`
`This is in response to the Petition decision mailed March 9, 2015. Please
`
`reconsider the decision in view of the following remarks.
`
`
`
`In re Application of:
`
`Pirim
`
`Docket No.:
`
`8042-2-1
`
`Application No.:
`
`11/676,926
`
`Examiner:
`
`Seth MANAV
`
`Patent No.:
`
`7,650,015
`
`Art Unit:
`
`2624
`
`Filed:
`
`02-20-2007
`
`Confirmation No.:
`
`9051
`
`
`
`IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD
`For:
`
`
`Commissioner for Patents,
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`FOURTH REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PETITION DECISION
`
`Sir:
`
`This is in response to the Petition decision mailed March 9, 2015. Please
`
`reconsider the decision in view of the following remarks.
`
`
`
`11/676,926
`
`Pirim
`
`8042-2—1
`
`The decision states:
`
`3'? CFR 1.783333:
`
`The abovc~captioned 0.8. patent issued from an application filed alter November 29,
`2000, and the corrected benefit claim under 35 1.3.8.13. 120 is submitted afier the expiration oi’thc
`time period specified in 37 CFR i.78{a)(2)(ii). Under the circumstances present here, the
`petition is properly considered under 37 CFR i.?8{a}(3). gag MPEP section l48l .03.
`
`A gramabic petition under 3’? CFR i.78(a}(3) must be accompanied by the following:
`
`{i}
`
`{2)
`{St
`
`the mic-fence: required by 35 U513. 112i} and 3'? CFR
`'l ,78(a){2)(i) to the priormfiicd application, unless
`previously submitted;
`the surcharge set forth in 37 CPR 1.173); and
`a statement that the entire delay between the data the claim was due
`under 37' CFR i.?8(a){2){ii) and the date. the claim was filed was
`unintentional.
`
`Item (1): With regard to Item (1) the decision states the Application Data
`
`Sheet filed on November 24, 2014 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.76(c)(2)
`
`allegedly because it is not entitled “Supplemental Application Data Sheet” and
`
`does not identify the information that is being changed, preferably with
`
`underlining for insertions and strike-through or brackets for text removed.
`
`Applicant submits herewith a Marked-up Supplemental Application Data
`
`Sheet in the format as originally filed identifying information being changed, a
`
`Marked-up Supplemental Application Data Sheet PTO form identifying
`
`information being changed and a Clean Application Data Sheet PTO form.
`
`Item (2): With regard to item (2), the decision states the surcharge set
`
`forth has been previously submitted.
`
`Item (3): With regard to item (3), the prior Request for Reconsideration
`
`states, “The entire delay between the date the claim was due under 37 CFR
`
`1.55(a)(1) and the date the claim was filed was unintentional.” This remains true.
`
`The entire delay between the date the claim was due and the filing of this petition
`
`was unintentional.
`
`
`
`11/676,926
`
`Pirim
`
`8042-2—1
`
`The decision states the statement previously submitted of unintentional
`
`delay is acceptable.
`
`37 CFR 155$}
`
`Tire abov'ecaptioned US. patent issued from an appiicaiiori filed after November 29,
`2000, and the foreign priority ciaim under 35 U.S.C. i l9(a)*(d) or 365(3) directed to French
`application number FR 9609420 was not submitted prior to the expiration of the time period
`Specified in 3'! CFR i.,55{a)(l). Accordingiy, this is an appropriate petition under the provisions
`of 3? CFR 155(0).
`
`A grantable petition under 37 CFR i.55(c} to accept an unintentionaliy delayed claim for
`foreign priority requires the foliowmg:
`-
`
`(i)
`
`the ciaim under 35 U.S.C. l i9{a}*(d) or 365(21) and this scction to the prior
`foreign appiication, unicss previousiy submitted;
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`the surcharge as set forth in 3? CFR 1.177(1);
`
`a statement that the entire delay between the date;- rhe ciaim was due under 3?
`CFR 155(3)“) and the date the claim was filed was unintentionai.
`
`Item (1): With regard to Item (1) the decision states the Application Data
`
`Sheet filed on November 24, 2014 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.76(c)(2)
`
`allegedly because it is not entitled “Supplemental Application Data Sheet” and
`
`does not identify the information that is being changed, preferably with
`
`underlining for insertions and strike-through or brackets for text removed.
`
`Applicant submits herewith a Marked-up Supplemental Application Data
`
`Sheet in the format as originally filed identifying information being changed, a
`
`Marked-up Supplemental Application Data Sheet PTO form identifying
`
`information being changed and a Clean Application Data Sheet PTO form.
`
`Item (2): With regard to item (2), the decision states the surcharge set
`
`forth has been previously submitted.
`
`Item (3): With regard to item (3), the prior Request for Reconsideration
`
`states, “The entire delay between the date the claim was due under 37 CFR
`
`
`
`11/676,926
`
`Pirim
`
`8042—2—1
`
`1.55(a)(1) and the date the claim was filed was unintentional.” This remains true.
`
`The entire delay between the date the claim was due and the filing of this petition
`
`was unintentional.
`
`The decision states the statement previously submitted of unintentional
`
`delay is acceptable.
`
`No additional surcharge should be owed, but the Director is hereby
`
`authorized to charge any deficiency in fees filed, asserted to be filed, or which
`
`should have been filed herewith (or with any paper hereafter filed in this
`
`application by this firm) to our Deposit Account 14-1437. Please credit any
`
`excess fees to such account.
`
`Date: March 17 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`NOVAK DRUCE + QUIGG, LLP
`
`/Michael P. Byrne/
`
`Michael P. Byrne, Reg. No. 54,015
`525 Okeechobee Blvd.
`15th Floor
`
`West Palm Beach, FL 33401
`
`Phone: (561) 847-7800
`Fax: (561) 847-7801
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
