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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In particular the limitation “means for generating a forced air flow” in claims 12 and 21 that use the word “means” is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. In para "[0018]", the specification states: air flow to be passed through the housing so as to cool the sensor can be generated either by a fan Therefore, the means for generating a forced air flow is construed as fan.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 10, 13, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (JPS58221326A) in view of Imai (JP2010266115) with citations made to attached machine translations.
PNG
media_image1.png
268
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Endo
Regarding claim 1, Endo teaches assembly (13) for detecting operating parameters within an oven cavity (2), the assembly comprising:
a housing (32);
a sensor (15) arranged within the housing (32) and adapted to detect an operating parameter during a cooking operation within said oven cavity (2),
at least a portion (18) of said housing and/or said oven cavity between said sensor (15) and an interior of said cavity (2) being transparent or permeable (through hole 18) to the operating parameter to be detected by the sensor (15), said sensor (15) being adapted to detect the operating parameter (detects infrared rays radiated from food or the like placed inside the heating chamber 2 through a through hole 18) through said portion (18) of said housing (14) and/or said oven cavity (2);
an air inlet (24) for feeding air into the housing (32);
an air outlet (25) through which air can leave the housing (32), wherein said air inlet (24) and said air outlet (25) are axially aligned such that an airflow passes from said air inlet to said air outlet in a first direction (Fig. 5 horizontal direction),
wherein said sensor (15) and said transparent or permeable portion (18) are all aligned in said second direction (Fig. 5 vertical direction).
Endo is silent on an annular portion protruding from the housing in a second direction, wherein the transparent or permeable portion of said housing and/or said oven cavity is located within said annular portion; and
a heatsink, within disposed within the housing in contact with the sensor, wherein said heatsink, said sensor, said annular portion , and said transparent or permeable portion are all aligned in said second direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
388
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Imai
Imai teaches an annular portion (26) protruding from the housing (12)in a second direction (Fig. 2), wherein the transparent or permeable portion (14) of said housing (12) and/or said oven cavity (2) is located within said annular portion (26); and
a heatsink (18), within disposed within the housing (12) in contact with the sensor (13,15), wherein said heatsink (18), said sensor (13,15), said annular portion (26), and said transparent or permeable portion (14) are all aligned in said second direction (Fig. 2, vertical direction).
Endo and Imai are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sensors. It would have been obvious to have modified Endo to incorporate the teachings of Imai to have an annular portion, where the annular portion is protruding from the housing in a second direction, containing the transparent portion and a heatsink in contact with the sensor, where the heatsink, sensor, annular portion, and permeable portion are all aligned so that heat may be conducted through the annular portion and the heat sink so that ambient temperature may be transferred to the sensor more quickly allowing a higher speed and more accurate temperature response by the sensor in (Imai [0008, 0034-0035]).
Regarding claim 4, Endo and Imai teach the assembly of claim 1, and Endo teaches wherein the sensor comprises at least one of an optical sensor, an imaging system, a humidity sensor, a temperature sensor, a gas sensor, a sound sensor, and a chemical sensor ([0001] infrared sensor being a temperature sensor).
Regarding claim 10, Endo and Imai teach the assembly of claim 1, and Endo teaches further comprising a housing support (31) for mounting the housing (32)to a wall (2a) of the oven cavity (1).
Regarding claim 13, Endo and Imai teach the oven with an oven cavity and an the assembly of claim 1, and Endo teaches wherein the assembly (13) is mounted to the an exterior side of a wall (2a)of the oven cavity (2) and communicates with an interior of the oven cavity (2) through said portion (18)of said housing (32) and/or said oven cavity (2) which is permeable to said operating parameter to be detected by the sensor (13, 15).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Endo and Imai teaches all of the elements of the current invention as described above in claim 1. Endo further teaches wherein said first direction is perpendicular to said second direction (Fig. 5 vertical and horizontal directions).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (JPS58221326A) in view of Imai (JP2010266115) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Robbins (US 20150208858).
Regarding claim 3, Endo and Imai teach the assembly of claim 1, furthermore Endo teaches the sensor (15) but is silent on further comprising: a thermal interface material disposed between the heatsink and the sensor.
However, Imai teaches the heatsink (18).
It would have been obvious to have modified Endo to incorporate the teachings of Imai to have a heatsink so that heat may be conducted through the annular portion and the heat sink so that ambient temperature may be transferred to the sensor more quickly allowing a higher speed and more accurate temperature response by the sensor in (Imai [0008, 0034-0035]).
Endo and Imai do not teach a thermal interface material disposed between the heatsink and the sensor.
Robbins teaches a thermal interface material disposed between the heatsink and the sensor ([0038] temperature sensor affixed with an adhesive or thermal paste).
Endo, Imai, and Robbins are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ovens with sensor assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Son, Bickle, and Erbe to incorporate the teachings of Robbins to include attaching the sensor with a thermal interface in order to have the sensor maintain thermal contact with the vessel (Robbins [0038]).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (JPS58221326A) in view of Imai (JP2010266115) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of in view of Shozo (US 20050056634).
Regarding claim 5, Endo and Imai teach the assembly of claim 1, but are silent on further comprising a cover which covers a receptive region of the sensor but which is permeable for a physical or chemical parameter to be detected by the sensor.
However, Shozo teaches a cover which covers a receptive region of the sensor but which is permeable for a physical or chemical parameter to be detected by the sensor ([0055] cover 19, temperature sensor inside cover).
Endo, Imai, and Shozo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sensor assemblies. It would have been obvious to have modified Endo and Imai to incorporate the teachings of Shozo to have a cover for the sensor in order to allow the sensor to monitor the additional temperatures of discharged from the device through the use of the cover(Shozo [0055]).
Regarding claim 6, Endo, Imai, and Shozo teach the assembly of claim 5, but Endo and Imai are silent wherein the sensor is a humidity sensor and the cover comprises a membrane which is permeable for water vapor.
However, Shozo teaches wherein the sensor is a humidity sensor (35) the cover comprises a membrane which is permeable for water vapor ([0055] cover 19, temperature sensor inside cover, measures steam discharged).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the sensor of Endo and Imai to have a humidity sensor and a cover with a membrane permeable to water vapor for the sensor in order to allow the sensor to monitor the temperature of the overheated steam discharged from the device (Shozo [0055]).
Claims 12, 14-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (JPS58221326A) in view of Imai (JP2010266115) applied to claim 1 above, in further view of in view of Oslin (US 5368008).
Regarding claim 12, Endo and Imai teach an oven with an oven cavity and the assembly of claim 1, and Endo teaches the oven comprising means for generating a forced air flow (5b) which is directed to the air inlet (24), but is silent on and wherein the assembly is located within the oven cavity.
PNG
media_image3.png
614
382
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of of Oslin
However, Oslin teaches the assembly is located within the oven cavity (Col. 5 lines 7-10 Fig. 3 sensor, inlet, and outlet in oven chambers).
Endo, Imai and Oslin are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ovens with sensor assemblies It would have been obvious to have modified Endo and Imai to incorporate the teachings of Oslin to include the sensor assembly within the oven in order to allow the continual sensing within each oven chamber of the flow of steam (Oslin Col. 3 lines 11-20).
Regarding claim 14, Endo, Imai, and Oslin teach the oven of claim 12, but Endo and Imai are silent on wherein the housing is formed in part by a deep drawn region in a wall of the oven cavity.
However, Oslin teaches the housing is formed in part by a deep drawn region in a wall of the oven cavity (Col. 5 lines 7-10 oven housing 18 and 20, regions in the wall).
It would have been obvious to have modified Endo and Imai to incorporate the teachings of Oslin to include the housing in deep drawn regions in a wall of the oven in order to allow the continual sensing within each oven chamber of the flow of steam (Oslin Col. 3 lines 11-20).
Regarding claim 15, Endo, Imai, and Oslin teach oven of claim 12, and Endo teaches wherein the air outlet (25) is located to expel air into the oven cavity (Pg. 3 lines 10-15 cooling air is led out through punched holes 25 and is discharged to the outside through exhaust ports 26).
Regarding claim 17, Endo, Imai, and Oslin teach the oven of claim 12, and Endo teaches wherein the air outlet (25) is connected to a conduit (26) to remove air from the assembly (Pg. 3 lines 10-15 cooling air is led out through punched holes 25 and is discharged to the outside through exhaust ports 26).
Regarding claim 18, Endo, Imai, and Oslin teach the oven of claim 12, and Endo teaches wherein the air outlet (25) is located in a wall of the housing (32) so as to expel air to an exterior side of the housing (25).
Regarding claim 19, Endo, Imai, and Oslin teach the oven of claim 12, and Endo teaches wherein said means for generating a forced air flow (5b) comprise a fan (Pg. 3 lines 1-10 fan 5b) for feeding ambient air to the air inlet (24).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (JPS58221326A) in view of Imai (JP2010266115) as applied to claim 5 above, in further view of in view of Bhogal (US 20160327281).
Regarding claim 7, Endo and Imai teach the assembly of claim 5, but are silent on wherein the sensor is an optical sensor and the cover comprises a transparent element.
However, Bhogal teaches an optical sensor ([0059] optical sensor 710) and the cover comprises a transparent element ([0059] fisheye lens, rectilinear lens).
Endo, Imai, and Bhogal are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ovens with sensor assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Endo and Imai to incorporate the teachings of Bhogal to include an optical sensor with a transparent cover to record an image or video of the cooking cavity and the food within the cavity (Bhogal [0059]).
Regarding claim 8, Endo, Imai and Bhogal teach the assembly of claim 7, but Endo and Imai is silent on wherein the transparent element is designed as an optical filter and/or lens.
However, Bhogal teaches the transparent element is designed as an optical filter and/or lens ([0059] fisheye lens, rectilinear lens).
It would have been obvious to have modified Endo and Imai to incorporate the teachings of Bhogal to have the transparent cover be a lens in order to record an image or video of the cooking cavity and the food within the cavity with a wide angle camera view, getting an approximately 180 degree field of view (Bhogal [0059]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (JPS58221326A) in view of Imai (JP2010266115) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Markwardt (WO 2012112704).
Regarding claim 9, Endo and Imai teach the assembly of claim 1, but are silent on wherein the housing or parts thereof are made from a material having a thermal conductivity at standard conditions of less than 10 W/m-K.
However, Markwardt teaches wherein the housing or parts thereof are made from a material having a thermal conductivity at standard conditions of less than 10 W/m-K ([00212] humidifying mechanism treated with PTFE, PTFE having less thermal conductivity of less than 10 W/m-K).
Endo, Imai, and Markwardt are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ovens with sensor assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Endo and Imai to incorporate the teachings of Markwardt include material with a thermal conductivity less than 10 W/m-K in order to minimize build-up of minerals on the mechanism (Markwardt [00212])
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (JPS58221326A) in view of Imai (JP2010266115) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Culzoni (US 5530223).
Regarding claim 11, Endo and Imai the assembly of claim 10, but are silent on wherein the housing support is made of a material having a lower thermal conductivity than the housing.
PNG
media_image4.png
544
416
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 13 of Culzoni
However, Culzoni teaches the housing support (Col. 4 lines 11-14 cup 80 Fig. 13) is made of a material having a lower thermal conductivity than the housing (Col. 4 lines 11-14 cup made of rubber or synthetic material like PTFE, PTFE having thermal conductivity less than 1 W/m-k which is less than the 10 W/m-k that the housing is composed of).
Endo, Imai, and Culzoni are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ovens with sensor assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Endo and Imai to incorporate the teachings of Culzoni to ensure the housing and support are in communication and are able to facilitate accurate flowing of water or air through device (Culzoni Col. 8 lines 50-55).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (JPS58221326A) in view of Imai (JP2010266115) and Oslin (US 5368008) as applied to claim 15 above, in further view of in view of Shozo (US 20050056634).
Regarding claim 16, Endo, Imai and Oslin teach the oven of claim 15, having an assembly as defined in claim 5, but are silent on wherein the air outlet comprises one or more outlet openings located in a perimeter of the cover.
However, Shozo teaches the air outlet comprises one or more outlet openings located in a perimeter of the cover ([0047] cover 19 having a plurality of steam discharge holes).
It would have been obvious to have modified Son, Bickle, Erbe, and Oslin to incorporate the teachings of Shozo to have a cover that has a plurality of outlets to allow the sensor to monitor the temperature of the overheated steam discharged from the device (Shozo [0055]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (JPS58221326A) in view of Imai (JP2010266115) and Oslin (US 5368008) as applied to claim 12 above, in further view of in view of Son (US 20160273778).
Regarding claim 20, Endo Imai, and Oslin teach the oven of claim 12, but are silent on further comprising an insulation layer at a wall of the housing facing towards the oven cavity.
Son teaches further comprising an insulation layer at a wall of the housing facing towards the oven cavity ([0074] insulator 30 between cooking chamber and machine room 40).
It would have been obvious to have modified Endo, Imai, and Markwardt to incorporate the teachings of Son to have insulation in a wall of the housing to prevent leakage of heat between the electrical units (Son [0074]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (JPS58221326A) in view of Imai (JP2010266115) and in further view of Markwardt (WO 2012112704) and Son (US 20160273778).
Regarding claim 21, Endo teaches an oven (2) comprising an oven cavity for cooking food therein, and a sensor assembly (13), the sensor assembly (13)being attached to or formed in part with a wall of the oven cavity (2), and comprising
a sensor housing (32) and a sensor (15) disposed within the sensor housing (32),
said sensor (15)being adapted to detect an operating parameter during a cooking operation within said oven cavity (2),
said sensor housing (32) further comprising an air inlet (24) and an air outlet (25),
at least a portion (18) of said housing and/or said oven cavity between said sensor (15) and an interior of said cavity (2) being transparent or permeable (through hole 18) to the operating parameter to be detected by the sensor (15),
the air outlet (25) configured to discharge said flow of air in turbulent flow, means to generate a forced flow of air (5b) into said inlet (24) and over said sensor (15) so as to cool said sensor prior to being expelled from the sensor housing (32) via said air outlet (24),
wherein said air inlet (24) and said air outlet (25)are axially aligned such that an airflow passes from said air inlet to said air outlet in a first direction (Fig. 5 horizontal direction);
said sensor (15) said transparent or permeable portion (18) are all aligned in said second direction (Fig. 5 vertical direction).
Endo is silent on said sensor housing being made of a material having a thermal conductivity less than 1 W/m-K at standard conditions of temperature and pressure, and a heatsink in thermal communication with said sensor within the sensor housing and being effective to enhance thermal energy transfer from said sensor into said stream of cooling air passed through said sensor housing, a layer of insulation at a wall of said housing facing toward the oven cavity, an annular portion protruding from the housing in a second direction, wherein the transparent or permeable portion of said housing and/or said oven cavity is located within said annular portion, and wherein said heatsink, said sensor, said annular portion, and said transparent or permeable portion are all aligned in said second direction.
Imai teaches a heatsink (18) in thermal communication with said sensor (13,15) within the sensor housing (32) and being effective to enhance thermal energy transfer from said sensor into said stream of cooling air passed through said sensor housing ([0035])
an annular portion (26) protruding from the housing (12) in a second direction (Fig. 2 vertical direction), wherein the transparent or permeable portion (14) of said housing (12) and/or said oven cavity (2) is located within said annular portion (26); and
wherein said heatsink (18), said sensor (13,15), said annular portion (26), and said transparent or permeable portion (14) are all aligned in said second direction (Fig. 2 vertical direction).
It would have been obvious to have modified Endo to incorporate the teachings of Imai to have an annular portion, where the annular portion is protruding from the housing in a second direction, containing the transparent portion and a heatsink in contact with the sensor, where the heatsink, sensor, annular portion, and permeable portion are all aligned so that heat may be conducted through the annular portion and the heat sink so that ambient temperature may be transferred to the sensor more quickly allowing a higher speed and more accurate temperature response by the sensor in (Imai [0008, 0034-0035]).
Endo and Imai are silent on said sensor housing being made of a material having a thermal conductivity less than 1 W/m-K at standard conditions of temperature and pressure and a layer of insulation at a wall of said housing facing toward the oven cavity.
Markwardt teaches said sensor housing being made of a material having a thermal conductivity less than 1 W/m-K at standard conditions of temperature and pressure ([00212] humidifying mechanism treated with PTFE, PTFE having less thermal conductivity of less than 1W/m-K).
It would have been obvious to have modified Endo and Imai to incorporate the teachings of Markwardt include material with a thermal conductivity less than 1 W/m-K in order to minimize build-up of minerals on the mechanism (Markwardt [00212]).
Endo, Imai, and Markwardt are silent on a layer of insulation at a wall of said housing facing toward the oven cavity.
Son teaches a layer of insulation at a wall of said housing facing toward the oven cavity ([0074] insulator 30 between cooking chamber and machine room 40).
It would have been obvious to have modified Endo, Imai, and Markwardt to incorporate the teachings of Son to have insulation in a wall of the housing to prevent leakage of heat between the electrical units (Son [0074]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding applicant’s arguments to claim 21, towards the rejection under Son (US 20160273778) in view of Bickle (EP0663568) and in further view of Markwardt (WO 2012112704), Erbe (US11226105), and Fukurda (US4461941) are persuasive, however a new grounds of rejection is applied over Endo (JPS58221326A) in view of Imai (JP2010266115) and in further view of Markwardt (WO 2012112704) and Son (US 20160273778). Son is only used to teach the limitation of a layer of insulation at a wall of said housing facing toward the oven cavity ([0074] insulator 30 between cooking chamber and machine room 40).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 2/13/2026
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761