Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Background
This is a non-final Office action (under Reissue Control No. 15/359,396) that addresses original U.S. Application No. 13/905,283 (hereinafter the "'283 Application) issuing as U.S. Patent No. 8,896,953 B2 to Haga et al. (hereinafter the "Haga" patent) on Jan. 1, 2013. Based upon review of the '238 Application, the application was filed on May 30, 2013. The '283 Application also claims foreign priority to JP Application No. 2012-283294, filed December 26, 2012.
The Haga patent issued with original claims 1-12.
The present reissue application was filed November 22, 2016 as a reissue application of the Mayer patent.
A Preliminary Amendment, filed concurrently with the reissue application, amends independent claim 10 to correct a typographical error and adds new claims 13-40. Because the instant reissue application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the statutory provisions with respect to references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current America Invents Act ("AIA "), which will govern this application. However, because the effective filing date of the Bae patent is not on or after March 16, 2013, the AIA First Inventor to File ("AIA -FITF") provisions do not apply. Instead, the earlier "First to Invent" provisions apply.
A non-final Office was mailed September 10, 2019 rejecting claims 1-40.
In response, the Applicant filed an amendment (amending independent claim 30, cancelling dependent claim 36 and adding new dependent claim 41) and accompanying arguments on Feb. 21, 2020.
A final Office action was mailed April 27, 2020.
In response, an RCE was filed July 27, 2020 amending all the independent claims, adding new claim 42 and setting forth arguments as to why the amended claims distinguished over the prior art of record. Thus, claims 1-35, 37-40 and 42 are currently pending.
In response, a non-final Office action was mailed May 1, 2023.
In response, the Applicant filed an amendment and accompanying arguments October 30, 2023 (the “Amendment”).
The Patent Owner’s arguments have been duly considered, however they are not deemed fully persuasive. Moreover, said Amendment is informal and lacks proper written description support statements. Thus, the prior rejections are repeated below, except where any new grounds of rejection is due to the Applicant’s amendment to the claims. Finally, the claims have been determined to not meet the original patent requirement of amended claims in reissue proceeding. Thus, the claims are rejected under the original patent requirement and the Office action is made non-final.
Reissue Reminders
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b) to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which the Haga patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, other post-grant proceedings, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to timely appraise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
Claim Interpretation – Means Plus Function
Claims 1-5 and 10-29 are not interpreted to invoke mean-plus-function.
The examiner will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph to a claim limitation if it meets the following 3-prong analysis:
(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.
MPEP 2181.I.
Regarding the first prong, the claims fails to use the term “means” or “step”, thus a rebuttable presumption is made that the claims were not intended to invoke means-plus-function. MPEP 2181.I.A. The presumption may be overcome if the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder (a term that is simply a substitute for the term "means"). Here, claim 1 recites “a controller configured to control. . . .” The remaining independent claims 10, 13 and 22 recite similar limitations. The specification provides a description sufficient to inform one of ordinary skill in the art that the terms denotes structure. Specifically, Fig. 1, which is reproduced below, illustrates a “system controller 15” that is described as “comprising a single-chip integrated circuit” (col. 2, ll. 35-40 and 58-65).
PNG
media_image1.png
679
1137
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, to one of ordinary skill in the art when appraising the specification, the term “controller” is imparted in “controller” structure sufficient to perform the controlling functions.
Thus, the term “controller configured to control” and similar limitations fail to meet the third prong of being a generic placeholder and moreover fails to overcome the rebuttable presumption that means-plus-function was not invoked.
Informal Amendment
Said Amendment, filed October 30, 2023, does not comply with 37 CFR 1.173. Specifically, amended claims do not comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)2 & (c).
The Remarks do not show the specific teachings to the specific amended limitations of the claims. Rather, the Patent Owner offers no specific statement of support. Amendment, 16.
Any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(c) (emphasis added):
(c) Status of claims and support for claim changes. Whenever there is an amendment to the claims pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, there must also be supplied, on pages separate from the pages containing the changes, the status (i.e., pending or canceled), as of the date of the amendment, of all patent claims and of all added claims, and an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims.
As seen in MPEP 1453 V. D. Amendment of New Claims, the status of a claim shows specific claims limitations amended and specifically maps those new and amended limitations to the sections of the specification that teach the amended claim limitation. The following is an example from MPEP 1453 V. D. Amendment of New Claims:
First Amendment (wherein claim 11 was first presented):
Claim 11 (New). A knife comprising a handle portion and a notched blade portion.
In the Remarks (supplied on a separate page):
Status: The present application includes pending claims 1-11, with claims 1 and 11 being independent. With this amendment, applicant has added new independent claim 11. Support for this new claim is found in column 4, lines 26-41, column 5, lines 3-18, and column 6, lines 5-15.
Second Amendment (wherein claim 11 is amended):
Claim 11 (New, amended). A fishing knife comprising a bone handle portion and a notched blade portion.
In the Remarks (supplied on a separate page):
Status: The present application includes pending claims 1-11, with claims 1 and 11 being independent. With this amendment, applicant has amended new independent claim 11 as described below.
Claim 11: Claim 11 is amended to add "fishing" before "knife" and "bone" before "handle". Support for these changes is found in column 4, lines 34-41 and column 6, lines 5-8, respectively.
If the next response does not comply with 37 CFR 1.173, the response will be held “Non-Compliant” and a shortened statutory period for reply to this letter is set to expire TWO (2) MONTHS from the mailing date of the next Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (New Matter)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-35, 37-40 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
To satisfy the original patent requirement where a new invention is sought by reissue, "the specification must clearly and unequivocally disclose the newly claimed invention as a separate invention" under the original patent requirement, as discussed in Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma Inc., 771 F.3d at 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also Forum US, Inc., v. Flow Valve, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2019). See also MPEP 1412.01.
However, and as discussed above in the informal amendment section, the Amendment contains insufficient statements of written description support.
The Examiner is not able to determine whether the claims as amended are properly supported, especially in the context of the heightened “clearly and unequivocally” original patent requirement set forth for reissue applications in Antares Pharma Inc., v. Medac Pharma Inc. and Medac GMBH, 771 F.3d 1354, 112 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also MPEP 1412.01.I.
As such, the Examiner has set forth a prima facie showing that the newly amended subject matter lacks written description support. Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007). See also MPEP 2163.04.I.
Nonetheless, the Patent Owner asserts that the numerous changes in claim language are “for clarity” however the amended subject matter goes to the scope of the claimed invention rather than clarity. For example, the amendment to originally issued claim 1 replaces the phrase “write the consecutive data in the spare writing area” with the newly amended phrase “write the consecutive data to the spare writing area.” Amendment, 22. Writing to a spare writing area is broader than writing in a spare writing area, however the Patent Owner has not pointed out where this increased scope finds support in the written description. The Patent Owner similarly amends “writing the consecutive data in the one of the spare writing area” to “writing consecutive data to the one of the spare writing area.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 (New Matter)
Claims 1-35, 37-40 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. The added material which is not supported by the prior patent, as explained in the 35 USC 112(a), 1st paragraph rejection above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Indefiniteness)
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.
Claims 1-6, 10-29 and 42 are 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.
Said RCE Amendment introduced the phrase “directly write the consecutive data in the spare writing area by shingled magnetic recording (SMR), instead of the user data writing area which is specified by the logical block address . . . .” (emphasis added to the term added by the RCE Amendment) or the equivalent into all of the independent claims (e.g., claim 1).
Although “directly” write is a broad phase that reasonably encompasses the mechanical act of directly writing data from the write head to the disk medium, the Patent Owner argues that this term means writing the data to a spare writing area instead of writing the data an intermediate location, such as an escape area. Amendment, 18. However, the claims explicitly and repeatedly use different language regarding writing to one area instead of writing to another area. For example, the phrase in question states “instead of the user data writing area which is specified by the logical block address” (e.g., claim 1). In another example, the claims recite “write the . . . data in the cache area, instead of the user data writing area . . . .” (e.g., claim 1). How does the term “directly” as interpreted by the Patent Owner (writing to the spare writing area instead of writing to other areas) relate to the subsequent phrase “instead of the user data writing area?” If “directly” means the same thing, then why is the subsequent phrase “instead of” used? If “directly” means something more, then what locations are excluded? The term “directly” cannot encompass every possible example of excluding the writing the data to another location. Such an interpretation would render the amended phrase’s scope to be not reasonably enabled by specification. Moreover, the data is written to other locations in the specification.
If the Patent Owner intends “directly” to mean “writing data to a spare writing area instead of an escape area,” then such language can be expressly recited in the claim language and moreover such language would be consistent with existing claim language reciting similar “instead of . . .” limitations. However, any subsequent amendment must provide sufficient support for newly added claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 (Original Patent Requirement)
Claims 13-35, 37-40 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as not being directed to the same general invention. The originally filed specification is clearly and wholly directed to an embodiment that writes data in a recording area on a disk by a Singled Magnetic Recording (SMR) method. Abstract, 2:16-29, originally issued claims 1-12.
Thus, the reissue claims must be for the same invention as that disclosed in the original patent, namely recording using SMR.
If a different embodiment is claimed during reissue prosecution, that different embodiment must be disclosed in the specification in an “explicit and unequivocal manner.” MPEP 1412.01.I, citing Antares Pharma Inc. v. Medac Pharma Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, the Patent Owner has introduced new claims by amendment that no longer recite recording using SMR. See said Amendment, filed Oct. 30, 2023. Thus, the claims reasonably encompass recording not using SMR. However, the specification appears to disclose no embodiment that records using a non-SMR process. Rather, the SMR method appears to be a necessary, critical and essential part of the invention. For example, the specification solves a problem of long processing times caused by the SMR rewriting process. 1:20-62. Reissue claims broadening a limitation (see the Reissue Declaration, filed Jan. 18, 2017) to cover undisclosed alternatives to a particular feature appearing from the face of the original specification to be a necessary, critical or essential part of the invention do not meet the original patent requirement. In re Float’N’Grill. 2202-1438 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Scope of Enablement)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13-35, 37-40 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the recited disk technology using shingled magnetic recording (SMR), does not reasonably provide enablement for embodiments using non-SMR technology. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make of use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
As an initial matter, SMR is a critical feature that is not recited in claims 13-15, 37-40 and 42 as discussed in the original patent requirement rejections above. A feature which is taught as critical in a specification and is not recited in the claims should result in a rejection of such claim under the enablement provision section 35 USC 112. MPEP 2164.08(c).
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The level of predictability in the art;
(D) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(E) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also MPEP 2164.01(a).
Here, the breadth of the claim is extreme as the originally issued claimed explicitly recited using SMR technology while the new claims leave out SMR technology. Thus, the new claims can be reasonably interpreted as encompassing all manner of non-SMR technology.
In contrast to the breadth of the claims, the amount of direction for using non-SMR technology is small. Indeed, the Examiner is unable to find any significant discussion of non-SMR technologies in the specification.
For the above reasons, the level of predictability in the art regarding non-disclosed, non-SMR technology would be low and the quantity of experimentation need to make or use the recited invention using non-SMR technology based on the content of the disclosure would be high.
Finally, the disk technology used to practice the invention involves block elements in the computer. However, the disclosure fails to disclose any algorithm (block elements) describing non-SMR technology. See MPEP 2164.06(c).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-35 and 37-40 and 42 (as they can best be understood, see the indefiniteness rejection above) are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0292538 A1 to Haga et al. (hereinafter the “Haga prior art”).
Introduction
The Haga prior art and the specification of the Haga prior art, for which reissue is sought, share substantial structural similarity as would be expected between patent publications sharing the same inventors, assignee and subject matter (shingled magnetic recording). Compare, e.g., compare Fig. 6 of the Haga prior art to Figs. 2A, 2B and 3 and the Haga patent for which reissue is sought.
PNG
media_image2.png
776
1167
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
698
430
media_image3.png
Greyscale
From the figures above, both Haga patents comprise both shingled tracks, track groups (or bands), and spare shingled tracks and groups (or bands).
Regarding independent claim 1, the Haga prior art clearly discloses:
A disk storage apparatus comprising:
See Fig. 1, magnetic disk device 1.
storage devices having a nonvolatile cache area in which a part of consecutive data is temporarily stored and a recording area including recording units each comprising a predetermined number of tracks on a disk, the recording unit including user data writing areas to which logical block addresses are assigned and a spare writing area to which no logical block address is assigned;
Storage device (disk 11) has a nonvolatile cache area (escape area 401) in which consecutive (sequential data) is temporarily stored. Fig. 5 and paragraphs 52 and 53. A recording area (disk surface) includes recording units (track groups 601) comprising a predetermined number of tracks 0 -99 to which logical block addresses are assigned and a spare writing area (track group 601) comprising a predetermined number of spare tracks 0-99 to which no logical block addresses are assigned. Figs. 5, 6 and paragraph 34.
a writing part configured to write data in the recording area; and a controller configured to control the writing of the consecutive data in accordance with a write command including a write request and the logical block address,
Writing part (actuator arm 15, voice coil motor16) writes data to the recording area (disk surface). A controller (CPU 26) is configured to write consecutive (sequential) data to the recording area (surface of the disk) in accordance with a write command including a write request for logical block address, such as when the spare area is used to receive overflow consecutive (sequential data). Paragraph 53.
wherein the controller is configured to:
directly write the consecutive data to the spare writing area by shingled magnetic recording (SMR) instead of the user data writing area which is specified by the logical block address and change the spare writing area to a new user data writing area to which the logical block addresses are assigned, if the write request is a sequential write request and the spare writing area is available,
The magnetic head directly writes the data into the physical medium containing the spare writing area. Paragraph 22. Writing part (actuator arm 15, voice coil motor16) As discussed above, the controller (CPU 26) writes consecutive (sequential) data into the spare writing area by shingled magnetic recording (SMR) (abstract and Fig. 6) instead of the user data writing area which is specific by the LBA (in cases of large sequential writes) and changes the spare writing area to a new user data writing area to which LBA(s) are assigned when the request is a large, sequential write request and the spare area is available. See and paragraphs 52 and 53.
write the consecutive data to the cache area instead of the user data writing area which is specified by the logical block address, if the write request is the sequential write request and the spare writing area is not available, and
invalidate data in the user data writing area which is specified by the logical block address after writing the consecutive data to one of the spare writing area and the cache area.
During large writes of consecutive (sequential) data, the data overflows the user data writing area specified by the LBA and is written to the escape area 401. Paragraphs 35-38, 52 and 53. The LBA is reassigned to both the escape area (paragraph 42) and spare area (paragraph 53). Thus, the user data writing area specified by the original LBA is invalidated.
Independent claim 6 differs from claim 1 in that it broadly recites a method comprising steps that are equivalent to the consecutive and nonconsecutive SMR writing processes described in the claims 1 rejection above.
Independent claim 10 differs from independent claim 1 in that claim 10 recites “one or both of a spare writing area and an invalid user data writing area to which no logical block addresses are assigned” and associated functions including “one of” the spare writing area and the invalid user data writing areas. Due to the use of the broad, alternative language (“one or both,” “one of”), the teachings of Haga prior art relating to the spare writing area (as discussed in the claim 1 rejection) satisfy the requirements of the claim 10 language. Nonetheless, the Haga prior art describes an invalid user data writing area after the LBA has been reassigned from a formerly valid user writing area to a spare writing area, as discussed in the claim 1 rejection.
Independent claim 13 differs substantively from independent claims 1 and 10 in that claim 13 recites a disk storage apparatus comprising specific apparatus components and structural arrangements. However, as discussed in the introduction section above, the Haga prior art and the Haga patent for reissue is sought share substantial structural and functional similarity. For example, the Haga prior art Figs. 2 and 3 clearly illustrate the apparatus components and structural arrangements recited in claim 13, specifically “medium,” “motor,” “write head,” “controller circuit”, various storage areas “located inward, relative to the axis” or the prior storage area.
PNG
media_image4.png
544
655
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
611
500
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The recited “first operation” reads on the consecutive (sequential) writing SMR processes involving the user area, spare area and escape area described in the claim 1 rejection.
The recited “second operation” reads on the nonconsecutive (random) writing SMR process involving the user area, escape area and cache. Paragraph 51 and 52.
Independent claim 22 differs substantively from independent claim 13 in that claim 22 additionally recites a “third operation” that writes consecutive data to the first storage area, which reads on the consecutive SMR writing process described in the clam 1 rejection.
Independent claim 30 does not substantively differ from independent claims 13 and 22. The “first operation” and “second operation” read on the consecutive SMR writing process and nonconsecutive SMR writing process described in the claims 13 and 22 rejections.
Independent claim 39 differs from the prior independent claims in that it broadly recites a method comprising steps that are equivalent to the consecutive and nonconsecutive SMR writing processes described in the claims 1 and 13 rejections above.
Regarding claim 2, see the escape area 401 discussed in the claim 1 rejection regarding nonvolatile storage memory defined as a specified recording area on the disk.
Regarding claims 3, 7 and 11, during writes the old LBA of the target location is deleted, freeing the invalided area to be available for future consecutive (sequential) writes described in the claim 1 rejection. Paragraph 61.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 8, 9 and 12, the invalidated area will have its LBA deleted thus freeing it up for future, consecutive (sequential) writes. After writing to this new spare area, the target LBA will again be deleted as part of an iterative process. See the claims 1 and 3 rejection for future details.
Regarding claims 14, 23 and 31, see the claims 3 and 4 rejections above and Fig. 8, step S808 regarding validation (“Data Is Written as Regular Track Group Made Available For Reading”).
Regarding claims 15, 17, 24 and 32, the Haga prior art supports writing SMR consecutive data (sequential) before or after writing nonconsecutive data (random).
Regarding claims 16, 25 and 33, the write head writes all data. See Fig. 2.
Regarding claims 18, 26 and 35, see the claim 1 rejection regarding writing of overflow data to either the escape area, the spare area, or both.
Regarding claims 19 and 27, the space area 401 is located on the outer circumferential side. See Fig. 4.
Regarding claims 20 and 28, see Buffer RAM 29. The buffer “buffers” data and thus stores the data temporarily before being written to the hard disk medium.
Regarding claims 21, 29 and 38, see Fig. 5, track 99.
Regarding claims 34 and 40, see the claim 16 rejection regarding the write head operation. See the claim 1 rejection regarding the writing of consecutive (sequential) addresses.
Regarding claim 42, see the claim 1 rejection for further details.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roland Foster whose telephone number is (571) 272-7538. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri., 9:30 – 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Fuelling can be reached on (571) 270-1367. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Signed:
/ROLAND G FOSTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 (571) 272-7538
Conferee:
/DAVID E ENGLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /MICHAEL FUELLING/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992