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 .
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.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 10 December, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 11,400,557 B2 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-10 and 12-19 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to incorporate the subject matter of claim 11 which was previously rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The lack of clarity emerges from the interaction between the limitations “the control circuit configured to…responsive to a difference between the actual value of the motor operating parameter and the nominal value of the motor operating parameter exceeding a predetermined difference threshold…” and “wherein the predetermined difference threshold is set to less than 30% of an amount of a difference between a nominal value of current, torque, or power and an actual value of current, torque, or power, respectively”. Specifically, the first limitation requires a comparison between a predetermined difference threshold (Z), and a difference between an actual value (X) and a nominal value (Y) of a motor operating parameter (i.e., it requires |X-Y|1 > Z to be true); while the second defines Z as being less than 30% of a difference between nominal and actual values of certain motor operating parameters (i.e. current, torque, and power). Assuming that the claim does not require comparing parameters of incompatible units, the second limitation may be understood as defining Z as less than 30% of the difference between X and Y (i.e., Z < 0.3 * |X-Y|). Taken together, the two limitations require that the control circuit to determine if |X-Y| is greater than Z, which is set to less than 0.3 * |X-Y|. Because the difference will always be greater than 30% of itself, the logic as currently claimed would require the control circuit to constantly instruct a user to adjust the grinding parameter. This does not make sense, which would lead one of ordinary skill to be unsure what is actually intended to be claimed.
Based on the disclosure, it appears that the intent is to claim a ratio between nominal and actual motor operating parameters, and to instruct a user to adjust a grinding parameter when that ratio exceeds some value (e.g. when the ratio of actual power to nominal power is less than 75% as described in paragraphs [0090]-[0095] of the specification), which may also be expressed in percentage terms (e.g., (Nominal parameter– Actual parameter) / nominal parameter * 100 = percent difference between parameters, which could be claimed as greater than 30). However, this is not what is currently claimed. Because the existing limitations in claim 1 do not make sense, one of ordinary skill would be confused as to the bounds of what is actually being claimed. Consequently, claim 1 remains rejected. Claims 2-10 and 12-19 depend from claim 1 and are likewise rejected as indefinite.
Claims 1-10 and 12-19 were previously rejected as generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The amendments have not resolved all of these errors. In particular, the claims appear to contain limitations that are both directed to an apparatus. For example, although claim 1 recites a floor grinding machine including a control circuit configured to “provide an instruction on the user interface of the user to adjust a grinding parameter”, claim 5, which depends from claim 1, recites what appear to be method steps of “determining a grinding parameter to be adjusted, and providing the instruction for the grinding parameter to be adjusted.” Because it is unclear if the claim would be infringed by the creation of a device capable of performing the recited method steps or if it requires the actual performance of the steps, the claim is indefinite. Similar limitations directed to method steps in claims ostensibly reciting an apparatus are present in nearly all of the claims.
Relatedly, the amendments to claims 14-19 have not resolved the indefiniteness issues described in the previous office action. The problematic terminology flows from the phrase “wherein, responsive to [some conditions] the control circuit further being configured [to perform certain actions]” which appears to have originated in a method claim. It remains unclear whether these limitations establish a contingent limitation or a set of capabilities that the control circuit should possess regardless the particular use. For example, claim 14 could be written as either:
14a. The floor grinding machine of claim 13, wherein the control circuit is further configured to receive a signal of measured torque from a control unit indicating that the torque produced is below the desired torque range, determine that a grinding process is a dry grinding process, and perform steps of increasing a grinding pressure, activating or increasing an aerosol supply, and reducing a flow to a dust collector, operatively connected to the grinding machine.
14b. The floor grinding machine of claim 13, wherein if the control circuit receives a signal of measured torque from a control unit indicating that the torque produced is below the desired torque range and determines that a grinding process is a dry grinding process,
the control circuit is configured to perform steps of increasing a grinding pressure, activating or increasing an aerosol supply, and reducing a flow to a dust collector, operatively connected to the grinding machine.
Where the interpretation outlined in 14a requires that the control circuit always have the capability to perform the steps involving grinding pressure, aerosol supply, and a dust collector, the interpretation outlined in 14b establishes a contingent limitation where the control circuit only needs to be configured to perform those steps if it receives a signal of measured torque and determines that it is being used in a dry grinding process. If neither of those conditions are met, the claim would be satisfied by a prior art controller even if it is silent as to increasing grinding pressure, aerosol, and a dust collector.
The use of the “responsive to” language creates an implicit if-then logic structure, which introduces the ambiguity described above. Because the amendments to claims 14-19 have not modified this language, the question of whether the limitations are contingent—and therefore the lack of clarity as to the scope of what is claimed—remains.
Additionally, claims 14-19 have been amended to include reference to both “a control unit” and “the control circuit”. The disclosure makes the relationship between these elements unclear. For instance, as claimed, they appear to distinct elements, but the invention as disclosed appears to use the terms largely interchangeably (or at least treats the control circuit as a subassembly of the control unit).
For purposes of examination, claims 1-10 and 12-19 will be interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergstrand et al. (US PGPub 2017/0312884, "Bergstrand") in view of Crane et al. (US PGPub 2004/0200017, "Crane").
1. Bergstrand teaches a floor grinding machine (2) for grinding or polishing floor surfaces comprising:
a machine frame (not labeled, see Bergstrand fig. 1);
a motor (9), supported by the machine frame (9 is on frame, see Bergstrand fig. 1);
a grinding head (carrying grinding tools 3, see Bergstrand fig. 1), supported by the machine frame and operably coupled to the motor, the grinding head being rotatably drivable by the motor (grinding tools 3 are driven by motor 9 via the grinding head and coupled to the frame, see Bergstrand fig. 1, [0002], and [0022]);
a user interface (4) configured to provide information to the user and to receive user inputs (Bergstrand [0027]-[0034]); and
a control circuit operably coupled to the user interface and configured to control the motor based on a received sensor signal, (control center 5 receives signals from a sensor 6 and user interface 4 and uses those to control parameters correlated with the motor such as grinding speed, see Bergstrand fig. 1 and [0018]), the control circuit being further configured to:
compare an actual value of a motor operating parameter with a nominal value of the motor operating parameter for a rotational speed of the grinding head (measuring actual parameters including motor speed and power consumption, and indicating deviation from selected parameters, see Bergstrand [0018]-[0019], [0027], and [0032]-[0035]), and
responsive to a difference between the actual value of the motor operating parameter and the nominal value of the motor operating parameter exceeding a predetermined difference threshold, providing an instruction on the user interface for the user to adjust a grinding parameter on the grinding head (warning a user if a parameter such as tool wear correlated with the motor operating parameter exceeds a predetermined value, and allowing a user to manually adjust a speed to match an optimal speed being displayed, see Bergstrand [0019] and [0032]-[0033]).
Bergstrand does not teach that the motor operating parameter used in the threshold comparison is current, torque, or power.
However, Crane teaches a feedback control system for a floor treatment device that compares an actual value of a motor operating parameter with a nominal value of the motor operating parameter, and responsive to a difference between the actual value of the motor operating parameter and the nominal value of the motor operating parameter exceeding a predetermined difference threshold, adjusts a grinding parameter on the grinding head, wherein the parameter used in the comparison is a motor power (comparing measured power to set power and adjusting a parameter if the difference exceeds a threshold, see Crane [0012]-[0013], measured power incorporates current and voltage used by motor, Crane [0018]-[0024], and fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bergstrand to incorporate the teachings from Crane regarding the use of motor power as a motor operating parameter in a threshold comparison, as doing so would ensure that floor treatment power was maintained at a substantially consistent level (Crane [0024]-[0026]).
Furthermore, although neither Bergstrand nor Crane explicitly teaches a specific range of values for the predetermined threshold, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of Bergstrand as modified such that its predetermined difference threshold was set to the claimed value, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05(II) The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the ratio of nominal power to measured power at which performance degrades, which achieves the recognized result of ensuring that performance is maintained within an optimal range (Crane [0028]-[0030]), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the claimed range is critical.
2. Bergstrand as modified teaches the floor grinding machine of claim 1, wherein the user interface comprises a display, and wherein the instruction is visually presented to the user on the display (information is displayed on operator's console 4, see Bergstrand [0023]-[0026] and figs. 3-4).
4. Bergstrand as modified teaches the floor grinding machine of claim 1, wherein the actual value of the motor operating parameter is current, torque or power (power, see Bergstrand [0022]) but does not teach that the actual value is determined by:
measuring a measured value of the motor operating parameter and deriving the actual value of the motor operating parameter based on the measured value, determining a rotational speed of the motor, determining a motor efficiency of the motor at the rotational speed, and determining the actual value of the motor operating parameter as the measured value adjusted by the motor efficiency.
However, Crane further teaches that the actual value is determined by adjusting a measured value by a motor efficiency (adjusting a measured motor power input by a motor efficiency factor determined from an efficiency curve to determine a motor power output, Crane [0018]). Crane teaches that the motor efficiency is determined from a known efficiency curve, but does not explicitly teach the steps of determining a rotational speed of the motor, determining a motor efficiency of the motor at the rotational speed. However, it has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). One of ordinary skill would understand that a motor efficiency is defined by the relation of motor input (defined by the input voltage and current) to motor output (defined by output torque and output speed) and calculating a specific motor efficiency associated with a specific power output from a known curve would involve using measured motor output variables—namely speed and torque—to determine the specific efficiency.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to integrate the additional teachings from Crane regarding the use of motor efficiency in determining an actual value of a motor operating parameter into the machine of Bergstrand as modified such that the actual value of the motor operating parameter was determined by: measuring a measured value of the motor operating parameter and deriving the actual value of the motor operating parameter based on the measured value, determining a rotational speed of the motor, determining a motor efficiency of the motor at the rotational speed, and determining the actual value of the motor operating parameter as the measured value adjusted by the motor efficiency, as doing so would allow a desired performance level to be maintained in the event of fluctuations in inputs such as voltage or current of power inputs. (Crane [0024]).
5. Bergstrand as modified teaches the floor grinding machine of claim 4, wherein, responsive to the difference between the actual value of the motor operating parameter and the nominal value of the motor operating parameter exceeding the predetermined difference threshold, determining a grinding parameter to be adjusted, and providing the instruction for the grinding parameter to be adjusted (prompting a user to select a tool of different hardness based on tool wear speed and motor power output, see Bergstrand [00-26] and [0032]).
6. Bergstrand as modified teaches the floor grinding machine of claim 5, wherein the control circuit further provides a second instruction for adjusting a second grinding parameter in response to a determination that the second grinding parameter is to be adjusted (prompting a user to move forward at an optimal speed based on grinding tool being used, Bergstrand [0026]).
7. Bergstrand as modified teaches the floor grinding machine of claim 6, wherein the second instruction for adjusting the second grinding parameter is provided automatically by the control circuit to adjust the second grinding parameter (instruction to user may be provided automatically in response to other measured inputs, see Bergstrand [0026]).
8. Bergstrand as modified teaches the floor grinding machine of claim 7, wherein the control circuit informs the user of the adjustment of the second grinding parameter via the user interface, and wherein the control circuit is further configured for receiving a user input acknowledging that the second grinding parameter has been adjusted (instruction to user may be provided automatically in response to other measured inputs, a user moving more quickly in response would serve as a use input acknowledging the instruction to the control circuit, see Bergstrand [0026]).
9. Bergstrand as modified teaches the floor grinding machine of claim 1, but does not teach that determining the nominal value of the motor operating parameter comprises determining the nominal value of the motor operating parameter at the rotational speed by calculation or a lookup table based on the rotational speed.
However, Crane further teaches that the actual value is determined by adjusting a measured value by a motor efficiency (adjusting a measured motor power input by a motor efficiency factor determined from an efficiency curve to determine a motor power output, Crane [0018]). Crane teaches that the motor efficiency is determined from a known efficiency curve, but does not explicitly teach the step of determining the nominal value of the motor operating parameter at the rotational speed by calculation or a lookup table based on the rotational speed. However, it has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). One of ordinary skill would understand that a motor efficiency is defined by the relation of motor input (defined by the input voltage and current) to motor output (defined by output torque and output speed) and calculating a specific motor efficiency associated with a specific power output from a known curve would involve using measured motor output variables—namely speed and torque—to determine the specific efficiency. Similarly, one of ordinary skill would understand that a curve may be represented by a table of coordinate data points defining the curve (or an equation defining the curve in terms of the charted variables), and that finding a particular efficiency could be achieved by means of looking up the relevant input variables on the table to find an efficiency, performing an interpolation to identify a data point between table entries, or entering input variables in the formula defining the curve to obtain the necessary efficiency. Each of these methods would involve either a lookup table or a calculation.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings from Crane regarding the use of motor efficiency in determining an actual value of a motor operating parameter into the machine of Bergstrand such that it included a step of determining the nominal value of the motor operating parameter comprises determining the nominal value of the motor operating parameter at the rotational speed by calculation or a lookup table based on the rotational speed, as doing so would allow a desired performance level to be maintained in the event of fluctuations in inputs such as voltage or current of power inputs. (Crane [0024]).
10. Bergstrand as modified teaches the floor grinding machine of claim 9, wherein the lookup table provides a motor efficiency at the rotational speed and the nominal value of the motor operating parameter is adjusted by the motor efficiency (Crane teaches looking up efficiency information from a curve, Crane [0018], [0024]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergstrand and Crane as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Erko et al. (US 6895363, "Erko '363").
3. Bergstrand as modified teaches the floor grinding machine of claim 1, wherein the instruction is visually presented to the user on the user interface (information is displayed on operator's console 4, see Bergstrand [0023]-[0026] and figs. 3-4), and wherein the user provides an input to control the floor grinding machine via the user interface responsive to the instruction (control of device is performed via operator's console 4, see Bergstrand [0028]-[0031]).
Bergstrand does not explicitly teach that the user interface comprises a touch screen display.
However, Erko '363 teaches the use of touch screen displays as user interfaces in floor treatment systems, wherein the user interface is used to provide inputs to the device as well as feedback such as instructions (user interface is a touch screen display, see Erko '363 figs. 3-11 and 7:16-44).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings from Erko '363 regarding the use of touch screen displays as user interfaces in floor treatment devices into the floor grinding machine of Bergstrand, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one sort of known user interface for another (specifically the use of a touch screen display instead of an unspecified interface), and the results of such a substitution would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 13, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergstrand and Crane as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stuchlik et al. (US 6493896, "Stuchlik").
13. Bergstrand as modified teaches the floor grinding machine of claim 1, but does not teach that adjusting the grinding parameter comprises: determining a torque produced by the motor, comparing the torque produced with a desired torque range, and if the torque produced is outside the desired torque range, instructing the user to adjust the grinding pressure via the user interface.
However, Stuchlik teaches a method of improving the operation of floor treatment devices by applying limit controls to a variety of variables such as motor torque and pressure and providing user feedback for adjustments to each (Stuchlik 14:31-15:20).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings from Stuchlik regarding the use of limit-based feedback loops for correlated floor treatment properties such as pressure and torque into the machine of Bergstrand such that adjusting the grinding parameter comprises: determining a torque produced by the motor, comparing the torque produced with a desired torque range, and if the torque produced is outside the desired torque range, instructing the user to adjust the grinding pressure via the user interface, as doing so would improve control over correlated floor treatment variables by allowing users to set desired values in one variable and threshold limits in others rather than attempting to maintain each within a set range or at a set value.
Regarding claims 16 and 19, Bergstrand as modified does not explicitly teach that the control circuit is configured to wait until a predetermined period has elapsed after providing a user instruction, determine if the torque is still outside a desired range, and then adjust a grinding speed or direction or prompt the user to change a tool or change the grinding process. However, Bergstrand does teach that the user should be prompted when tools need to be replaced (Bergstrand [0024]-[0026]), while Stuchlik teaches the use of a feedback system for controlling torque based on limit controls (Stuchlik 14:31-15:20). A feedback system will necessarily involve a predetermined period between a control signal being sent and new sensor data being received, so it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the machine of Bergstrand as modified such that its control circuit was configured to wait until a predetermined period has elapsed after providing a user instruction, determine if the torque is still outside a desired range, and then adjust a grinding speed or direction or prompt the user to change a tool or change the grinding process, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, the results of such a combination being predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 and 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: as best understood by the examiner, each of claims 14-15 and 17-18 recite an additional limitation for the control circuit that requires the control circuit be configured to
Receive a signal indicating that the torque is outside a desired torque range;
Determine whether a grinding process is a dry grinding process or a wet grinding process; and
Increase or decrease a grinding pressure and modify the performance of some combination of an aerosol supply and a flow to a dust collector (for a dry grinding process) or a water feed rate (for a wet grinding process).
No art has been identified which teaches or suggests these limitations. The art cited in the rejections above neither teaches nor suggests control based on both a signal that a measured torque is outside a desired range and a determination that the grinding process is a wet process or a dry process. Additional art includes:
McCutchen et al. (US 8684796, "McCutchen"), which teaches that dry and wet grinding processes are known in the art, as is the inclusion of water supplies for wet grinding or the presence of a suction device operatively connected to the grinding machine (McCutchen 2:16-28).
Thysell (US 7235003), which teaches the use of an aerosol and dust collector in conjunction with a dry grinding process (Thysell 2:41-65), and that such elements may reduce tool wear and simplify the grinding process (Thysell 2:21-38).
Reccanello (US 10813516), which teaches the concept of controlling liquid delivery in surface treatment as a function of travel speed (Reccanello 2:64-3:20).
Field (US 4757566), which teaches a system for torque compensation in a floor cleaner that adjusts grinding pressure based on measured torque (Field 2:25-3:13) and further teaches that the tool may include fluid supplies or vacuum fans controlled by the same control circuit as the grinding pressure (Field 7:43-54). However, although Field teaches increasing or decreasing grinding pressure based on a measured torque (Field 6:34-7:2), it does not teach that the control circuit makes any determination as to whether the grinding process is dry or wet, and also contains no details regarding how the control circuit adjusts fluid supplies or vacuum fans.
Because no art has been identified that teaches all the limitations of claims 14-15 and 17-18 as interpreted, the claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 December, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As noted in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) provided above, although applicant is correct that claim 1 as amended does not define the predetermined difference threshold as equal to the difference between an actual and nominal value, the claim is still indefinite because the claimed relationship nonetheless results in a circular relationship where a difference is compared to a threshold defined as being less than a fraction of the difference, which will always produce a Boolean result of True. Because this result would be inconsistent with the invention described as disclosed, claim 1 is indefinite.
Applicant’s remaining amendments have not overcome the remaining issues of indefiniteness described above.
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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571)-272-4475. 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.
/J.R.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
1 Although the claim recites a difference between actual and nominal for the first limitation and a difference between a nominal value and an actual value for the second, it cannot properly be said to establish the direction of subtraction for each of the relevant limitations. The use of an absolute value is to demonstrate that the limitation is unclear regardless of order of subtraction.