throbber

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`wwwusptogov
`
`
`
`
`
`14/670,307
`
`03/26/2015
`
`Hiroshi Kanamaru
`
`731156421
`
`4826
`
`Seed IP Law Group LLPflDanasonic
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`REN’ ZHUBING
`
`PAPER NUIVIBER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2483
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`11/29/2017
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`US PTOeAction @ SeedIP.com
`
`pairlinkdktg @ seedip.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 14/670,307 KANAMARU ET AL.
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Office Action Summary
`
`ZHUBING REN $2213 2483
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136( a).
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`
`1)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 10/27/2017.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|:l This action is non-final.
`2a)|Z| This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:| Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)IZI Claim(s) 10 11 13-15 18 19 21-23 and 28-46is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`is/are allowed.
`6)I:I Claim(s)
`
`7)|Z| Claim(s) 10 11 13- 15 18 19 21 -23 and 28-46 is/are rejected.
`
`8)|:I Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`* If any)claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`
`
`()
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`
`
`:/'/\W¢W.LISI>I‘.0. ovI’ atentS/init events/
`h/index.‘s orsend an inquiryto PPI-iieedback{®usgtc.00v.
`
`hit
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)I:l The drawing(s) filed on
`is/are: a)I:I accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)I:| Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)I:l All
`
`b)|:l Some” c)I:l None of the:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.|:| Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) D Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`4) I:I Other'
`2) I] InformatIon DIsclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20171117
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/670,307
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 2
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file
`
`provisions of the AIA.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Summary
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`This action is in reply to Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed on 10/27/2017.
`
`Claims 10, 11, 13-15, 18, 19, 21-23, and 28-46 are pending.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`3.
`
`Regarding applicant’s argument on page 11 of the remarks that the combination of Nakamura
`
`and Jones does not disclose displaying details information about a technical malfunction state of a
`
`monitoring camera, FIG. 1 and 16 of illustrate that a monitoring camera with built-in sensors detecting
`
`abnormal events of the monitoring camera and communicating with a cell phone user. The cell phone is
`
`receiving detail information (i.e. warning message, images detection time) from the monitoring camera
`
`and displaying it. Although Nakamura does not explicitly disclose a technical malfunction state of a
`
`camera, however, paragraph [0088] of Jones teaches the well-known concept of abnormality detection
`
`signals including suspected reasons for the technical malfunction state of the monitoring camera. See
`
`the detail mappings in section 7 below.
`
`4.
`
`During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation consistent with the specification." Phi/lips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, at 1316 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005). See also In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`5.
`
`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 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.
`
`6.
`
`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:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/670,307
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 3
`
`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 of this title, 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.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, and 38-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103
`
`as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al (US 20060209176 A1 in view of Jones et al (US
`
`20090141932 A1)
`
`Regarding claim 10, Nakamura discloses a monitoring camera [e.g. FIG. 2 and 16] including an
`
`imager [e.g. 23] and a communicator [e.g. FIG. 1-3; e.g. LAN system]; and a master device [e.g. 25]
`
`which, in operation [e.g. [0091]], performs wireless communication with the monitoring camera according
`
`to a communications protocol [e.g. FIG. 3; e.g. wireless communication],
`
`performs wireless communication [e.g. FIG. 3; e.g. wireless communication], via a wireless
`
`router [e.g. FIG. 2], with a smartphone having a display [e.g. 12], in response to identify a malfunction
`
`state of the monitoring camera [e.g. FIG. 2 and 16 and 18; e.g. remaining power level is low and a
`
`built-in sensor detects an abnormal event], transmits notification information to the smartphone [e.g.
`
`12; [0091]; cellular phone] to display thereon a warning screen [e.g. FIG. 2 and 15; [0230-233 and
`
`244]; e.g. warning message of lowering of battery level] based on the notification information, in
`
`response to receiving from the smartphone, user selection of a first request [e.g. [0190]; e.g. user input
`
`request for downloading images] displayed as part of the warning screen, transmits first detailed
`
`information [e.g. e.g. image data with specified low0power communication] about the malfunction
`
`state to the smartphone for display, and in response to receiving, from the smartphone, user selection of
`
`a second request [e.g. [0294]; e.g. abnormal detection time] displayed as part of the first detailed
`
`information, transmits second detailed information about the malfunction state to the smartphone for
`
`display [e.g. FIG. 16-18; displaying the images at the time the built-in sensor detects the abnormal
`
`event].
`
`Although Nakamura discloses a monitoring camera with built-in sensors detecting abnormal
`
`events of the monitoring camera and communicating with a cell phone user, it is noted that Nakamura
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/670,307
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 4
`
`differs to the present invention in that Nakamura fails to disclose the details of a technical malfunction
`
`state of the monitoring camera.
`
`However, Jones et al (US 20090141932 A1) teaches the well-known concept of abnormality
`
`detection signals including suspected reasons for the technical malfunction state of the monitoring
`
`camera [e.g. FIG. 2 and 10; [0088]; e.g. lower power, low or high temperature].
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
`
`the invention to modify the monitoring system disclosed by Nakamura to exploit the well-known concept
`
`of image quality measuring technique taught by Jones as above, in order to image quality measures [See
`
`Jones; [0029]].
`
`Regarding claim 11, this claim is an apparatus that performs the same limitations cited in claim 10,
`
`the rejection of which are incorporated herein. Furthermore, Nakamura discloses a monitoring camera
`
`[e.g. FIG. 2-4; 23] comprising: a sensor [e.g. FIG. 16; e.g. 50a and 68] detecting a malfunction state
`
`[e.g. FIG. 16-18; e.g. low power].
`
`Regarding claim 13, Nakamura and Jones disclose all the limitations in claim 10, but Nakamura
`
`fails to disclose monitoring a temperature.
`
`However, Jones teaches a suspected reason for the technical malfunction state of the monitoring
`
`camera is a temperature below a defined threshold [e.g. FIG. 6; [0088]].
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
`
`the invention to modify the monitoring system disclosed by Nakamura to exploit the well-known concept
`
`of image quality measuring technique taught by Jones as above, in order to image quality measures [See
`
`Jones; [0029]].
`
`Regarding claim 15, Nakamura further discloses the technical malfunction state of the sensor is
`
`a remaining battery level of the sensor below a defined threshold [e.g. FIG. 3 and 4; [0104]].
`
`Regarding claim 18, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 10
`
`above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 10, the rejection of which are
`
`incorporated herein.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/670,307
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 5
`
`Regarding claim 19, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 11
`
`above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 11, the rejection of which are
`
`incorporated herein.
`
`Regarding claim 21, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 11 and
`
`13 above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 11 and 13, the rejection of
`
`which are incorporated herein.
`
`Regarding claim 28, Nakamura further disclose the sensor is an infrared sensor [e.g. [0282]; an
`
`infrared sensor].
`
`Regarding claim 30, Nakamura further discloses the notification information includes one or
`
`more of an ID of the monitoring camera and a location of the monitoring camera [e.g. FIG. 2 and 9;
`
`[0239]; e.g. registered camera selection].
`
`Regarding claim 32, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 30
`
`above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 30, the rejection of which are
`
`incorporated herein
`
`Regarding claim 34, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 30
`
`above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 30, the rejection of which are
`
`incorporated herein.
`
`Regarding claim 36, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 32
`
`above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 32, the rejection of which are
`
`incorporated herein.
`
`Regarding claim 38, Nakamura further discloses the communications protocol is a DECT (Digital
`
`Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications) protocol [e.g. FIG. 3; e.g. wireless communication].
`
`Regarding claim 39, this claim is an apparatus that performs the same limitations cited in claim
`
`38, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
`
`Regarding claim 40, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 38
`
`above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 38, the rejection of which are
`
`incorporated herein.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/670,307
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 6
`
`Regarding claim 41, Nakamura further teaches wherein the communications protocol is a DECT
`
`(Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications) protocol [e.g. FIG. 3; e.g. wireless communication].
`
`Regarding claim 42, Nakamura and Jones disclose all limitations in claim 10. Furthermore,
`
`Nakamura discloses the suspected reason is displayed in one or both of an image and text [e.g. Fig. 16-
`
`18; [0230]].
`
`Regarding claim 43, this claim is an apparatus that performs the same limitations cited in claim
`
`42, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
`
`Regarding claim 44, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 42
`
`above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 42, the rejection of which are
`
`incorporated herein.
`
`Regarding claim 45, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 43
`
`above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 43, the rejection of which are
`
`incorporated herein.
`
`8.
`
`Claim 14, 22, 23, 31, 33, 35 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Nakamura et al (US 20060209176 A1) in view of Jones et al (US 20090141932 A1) and Lee et al
`
`(US 20110090822 A1).
`
`Regarding claim 14, Nakamura further discloses the master device detects a malfunction state
`
`of the monitoring camera [e.g. FIG. 16 and 17; e.g. low power], but Nakamura fails to disclose detecting
`
`a communication link.
`
`However, Lee teaches the technical malfunction state of the monitoring camera is a disconnection
`
`of a communication link between the master device and the monitoring camera [e.g. FIG. 1 and 2;
`
`[0037]; e.g. detecting a communication link disconnection].
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
`
`the invention to modify the monitoring system disclosed by Nakamura to exploit the well-known concept
`
`image quality measuring technique taught by Jones and detecting communication link connection
`
`technique taught by Lee as above, in order to image quality measures [See Jones; [0029]] and audio
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/670,307
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 7
`
`between landline telephones and recording (i.e., taping, storing, preserving, or filing) a media conference
`
`when a termination event is detected [See Lee].
`
`Regarding claim 22, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 14
`
`above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 14, the rejection of which are
`
`incorporated herein.
`
`Regarding claim 23, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 11 and
`
`14 above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 11 and 14, the rejection of
`
`which are incorporated herein.
`
`Regarding claim 31, Nakamura further discloses the master device detects a malfunction state
`
`of the monitoring camera [e.g. FIG. 16 and 17; e.g. low power], but Nakamura fails to disclose detecting
`
`a communication link.
`
`Moreover, Lee teaches the suspect reason for the technical malfunction state is a disconnection
`
`of a communication link between the monitoring camera and the DECT master device [e.g. FIG. 1 and 2;
`
`[0037]; e.g. detecting a communication link disconnection].
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
`
`the invention to modify the monitoring system disclosed by Nakamura to exploit the well-known concept
`
`of image quality measuring technique taught by Jones and detecting communication link connection
`
`technique taught by Lee as above, in order to provide image quality measures [See Jones; [0029]] and
`
`audio between landline telephones and recording (i.e., taping, storing, preserving, or filing) a media
`
`conference when a termination event is detected [See Lee].
`
`Regarding claim 33, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 31
`
`above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 31, the rejection of which are
`
`incorporated herein
`
`Regarding claim 35, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 31
`
`above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 31, the rejection of which are
`
`incorporated herein.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/670,307
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 8
`
`Regarding claim 37, this claim is the method of the apparatus version as applied to claim 33
`
`above, wherein the method performs the same limitations cited in claim 33, the rejection of which are
`
`incorporated herein.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al (US
`
`20060209176 A1) in view of Jones et al (US 20090141932 A1) and Slavin et al (US 8675071 B1).
`
`Regarding claim 29, Nakamura and Jones disclose all the limitations in claim 11, but Nakamura
`
`fails to explicitly disclose the details of the sensor.
`
`However, Slavin et al (US 8675071 B1) teaches the well-known concept of wherein the sensor is
`
`selected from a group [column 7 lines 23-39; e.g. sensors] consisting of a human sensor [e.g. blood
`
`sugar sensor], a smoke sensor [e.g. smoke detector], an opening/closing sensor [e.g. door opening
`
`detector], a temperature sensor [e.g. temperature sensor].
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
`
`the invention to modify the monitoring system disclosed by Nakamura to exploit the well-known concept
`
`of image quality measuring technique taught by Jones and motion detection sensor technique taught by
`
`Slavin as above, in order to provide image quality measures [See Jones; [0029]] and more accurate
`
`alarm verification [See Slavin; column 22 lines 1-16].
`
`10.
`
`Claim 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al (US
`
`20060209176 A1) in view of Jones et al (US 20090141932 A1) and Hundal (US 20050197061 A1)
`
`Regarding claim 46, Nakamura and Jones disclose all the limitations in claim 10, but Nakamura
`
`fails to disclose a cordless handset and detail of malfunction state of the camera.
`
`However, Hundal (US 20050197061 A1) teaches the well-known concept of a master device [e.g.
`
`FIGURE 4; 410] performs wireless communication [e.g. [0007]; wireless communication] with one or
`
`more cordless handsets [e.g. 411] according to the communications protocol [e.g. FIG. 5; [0023];
`
`protocol], and is connected to a fixed telephone network [e.g. FIGURE 4; [0022 and 0038]; e.g.
`
`cordless/wireless radio link] to communicate with other fixed telephones [e.g. multiple 411].
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
`
`the invention to modify the monitoring system disclosed by Nakamura to exploit the well-known concept
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/670,307
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 9
`
`of image quality measuring technique taught by Jones and the well-known concept of cordless set
`
`telephone network technique taught by Hundal as above, in order to provide image quality measures
`
`[See Jones; [0029]] and exchanging data and audio between landline telephones and various electronic
`
`devices [See Hundal; [0002]].
`
`Conclusion
`
`11.
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth
`
`in 37 CFR1.136(a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from
`
`the mailing date of this action.
`
`In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date
`
`of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH
`
`shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action
`
`is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of
`
`the advisory action.
`
`In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
`
`be directed to ZHUBING REN whose telephone number is (571 )272—2788. The examiner can normally
`
`be reached on Monday to Friday 8:00am to 5 pm.
`
`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,
`
`Joseph Ustaris can be reached on 571-272—7383. The fax phone number for the organization where this
`
`application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/670,307
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Page 10
`
`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 http://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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative
`
`or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 -272-
`
`1000.
`
`/ZHUBING REN/
`
`Primary Examiner
`Art Unit 2483
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket