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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/24/2026 has been entered.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a means capable of modifying the distance of a coil from the face of the product that is closest to it” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“a means” (claim 7) is interpreted as “This means 21 for example comprises a worm whose longitudinal axis is perpendicular to the face 1fs of the product and a nut fixed on the coil with which the worm cooperates. Thus, the position of the coil is adjusted by rotating the worm. The means 21 can also be a rack, a linear motor, a jack” (para.0029 and 0053 of instant publication application).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11 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 recites “said inductor comprising coils having surfaces which extend over planes which are substantially parallel to each other” The term “substantially parallel" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, the specification does not define or supply some standard for the term “substantially parallel”, therefore applicant has not disclosed a range of acceptable deviation or how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what amount of deviation is acceptable.
Claim 4 recites “the relative position of the coils with respect to each other is adjustable so as to modify the distance between two substantially parallel surfaces on which the coils extend while keeping the product substantially centered between the coils on opposite sides of the central space.” The term “substantially parallel surfaces" and “substantially centered” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, the specification does not define or supply some standard for the term “substantially parallel surfaces" and “substantially centered”, therefore applicant has not disclosed a range of acceptable deviation or how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what amount of deviation is acceptable.
Claim 11 recites “a substantially homogeneous transverse temperature profile”. The term “substantially homogeneous transverse temperature profile " is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, the specification does not define or supply some standard for the term “substantially homogeneous transverse temperature profile”, therefore applicant has not disclosed a range of acceptable deviation or how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what amount of deviation is acceptable.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H04-054194 in view of Ross (US 2002/0148830) and Welch et al. (US 6107613).
Regarding claim 1, JP ‘194 discloses “an Inductor” (on page 26, induction ripening device) intended to heat “a flat product” (fig.5, 1) by transverse flow induction, “said product having an upper face” (5 has an upper face) and “a lower face” (5 has a lower face), “said inductor comprising coils” (8 and 9) having surfaces (each 8 and 9 having surfaces) which extend over planes (imaginary planes at upper 8 and 9 and lower 8 and 9) which are substantially parallel to each other, and “a thickness” (each inductor 8 and 9 has a thickness portion of the inductor) “in a direction perpendicular to these planes” (the thickness is in perpendicular direction with respect the imaginary planes), “the inductor also comprising a central space” (a space between the coils 8 and 9) between the coils that is intended to receive “the product” (1),
wherein “on each side of a central space, a first coil and a second coil are disposed” (8 and 9 on each side of central space. The central space refers to the space between top coils and bottom coils) , “a first coil and a second coil are disposed, such that two coils are disposed on a first side of the central space” (a first coil 8 and a second coil 9 are disposed such that two coils 8 and 9 are disposed on a first side (i.e., a top side) of the central space) and “two coils are disposed on a second side of the central space opposite the first” (another coils 8 and 9 disposed on the bottom side of the central space).
JP’194 is silent regarding characterized in that the first coil on each side of the central space, a coil closest to the face of the product and is spaced apart therefrom by a first distance on that side, and the second coil on each side is disposed at a distance from the face of the product that is at least equal to the first distance on that side plus the thickness of the first coil on that side, and wherein a relative position of the coils with respect to each other is adjustable such that the central axes of the coils perpendicular to the planes are selectively (i) all coincident, (ii) all distinct, or (iii) some coincident and others distinct in a direction parallel to the planes.
Ross teaches characterized “characterized in that the first coil on each side of the central space” (the first coil 82b on upper side, another first coil 82c on lower side), “a coil closest to the face of the product and is spaced apart therefrom by a first distance on that side” (a coil 82b closest to the upper face of the product 16 and is spaced apart therefrom by a first distance on that side), and “the second coil on each side is disposed at a distance from the face of the product that is at least equal to the first distance on that side plus the thickness of the first coil on that side” (the second coil 82a or 82d is disposed at a distance from the face of the product that is at least equal to the first distance on that side plus the thickness of the first coil on that side). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify JP’194 with Ross, by re-arranged JP’194 coils configuration according to Ross coil’s configuration, to provide improved heating efficiency (para.006-0007) based on shape and/or size and/or desired heating profile of a workpiece as taught by Ross.
Welch et al. teaches “a relative position of the coils with respect to each other is adjustable” (coils 46, 48, 50 and 52 with respect to each other is adjustable. The coils are adjustable in horizontal direction and vertical direction (see fig.2, arrows 76, 78, 86, 88, 84, 82, 72 and 74) represent the direction movement). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify JP’194 with Welch et al., by adding Welch et al.’s manual adjuster (Col.3 at lines 25-64, in particular at lines 42-43 and Col.4 at lines 58-63) to JP’194 coil device, to permit movement to a desired position for the improved heating of the workpiece (col.3 at lines 40-43) as taught by Welch et al.
The combination of modified ‘194 and Welch would meet the claim limitations of “a relative position of the coils with respect to each other is adjustable such that the central axes of the coils perpendicular to the planes are selectively (i) all coincident, (ii) all distinct, or (iii) some coincident and others distinct in a direction parallel to the planes” because JP’914, fig.5 shows the relative positions of coil with respect to each other is adjustable and modified ‘194 teaches stacked coils on top and bottom sides of the workpiece. Welch et al. teaches coils (46, 48, 50 and 52) are adjustable relative to each other in horizontal and vertical directions (arrows 76, 78, 86, 88, 84, 82, 72 and 74) with manual adjuster (Col.3 at lines 25-43, in particular at lines 42-43, i.e., manual adjuster (64, 66, 68, 70, 56, 58, 60 and 62)) at desired locations (col.4 at lines 42-64, i.e., The subject invention provides for inductor adjustment for achieving independent width of each turn and/or turn spacing. Although linear actuators have been shown that can implement preselected recipe positioning or automated positioning, the invention can also be implemented with manual adjustment of the inductor turn positions).
Thus, the Welch et al.’s can be used to adjust modified ‘194 coils at desired positions such that modified ‘194’s the central axes of the coils perpendicular to the planes are selectively (i) all coincident, (ii) all distinct, or (iii) some coincident and others distinct in a direction parallel to the plane because modified ‘194 having the central axes of the coils perpendicular to the planes (Ross, fig.8 shows coils 82a, 82b, 82c and 82d) all coincident. Since, Welch et al.’s teaches the coils position can be manually adjustable in horizontal and vertical directions. Then, the stacked coils (as shown in Ross, fig.8) as implemented in JP’194 coil system can be move in any desired locations such as the central axes of the coils perpendicular to the planes are selectively (i) “all coincident” (example: coils are all coincident when all remain at the same stacked position, as shown in Ross, fig.8), (ii) “all distinct” (example: Welch et al., the invention can also be implemented with manual adjustment of the inductor turn positions. This suggest that one of upper coil of modified JP’194 can be moved slight toward right at a smaller spacing and another upper coil of modified JP’194 can be moved toward right at a larger spacing; one of lower coil of modified JP’194 can be moved slightly toward left at a smaller spacing and another one of lower coil of modified JP’194 can be moved slightly toward left at a larger spacing), or (iii) “some coincident and others distinct in a direction parallel to the plane” (example: one of upper coil of modified JP’194 can be stationary. Another one of upper coil modified JP’194 can be moved toward right; One of lower coil of modified JP’194 stationary and another one of lower coil of modified JP’194 can be moved toward left). See MPEP 2143, (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify JP’194 with Welch et al., by adding Welch et al.’s manual adjuster (Col.3 at lines 25-64, in particular at lines 42-43 and Col.4 at lines 58-63) to JP’194 coil device, to permit movement to a desired position for the improved heating of the workpiece (col.3 at lines 40-43) as taught by Welch et al.
Regarding claim 2, modified JP ‘194 discloses “the coils having a central axis perpendicular to the surfaces” (fig.8 of Ross teaches the coils having a central axis perpendicular to the horizontal surfaces of the coils), wherein “the relative position of the coils, with respect to each other, is adjustable” (JP’914, fig.5 shows the relative positions of coil with respect to each other is adjustable. Welch et al. teaches the manual adjuster that is capable of moving relative position of coils with respect to each other) “so that the central axes of the coils are all coincident” (fig.8 of Ross teaches the coils with all central axes coincident), so that the central axes of the coils are all distinct or so that some are coincident and others are distinct in a direction parallel to said surfaces.
Regarding claim 3, modified JP ‘194 discloses “the relative position of the coils with respect to each other is adjustable based on the width of the product” (JP ‘194, on page 38, If the gap G between the homogenizing coil 3 the heated material 1 is small, temperature gradually rises to the homogeneous state a. If the gap G is small, the temperature increases slowly. When the gap G is in the proper homogenizing position, it becomes homogeneous state b. If the gap G is large, temperature gradually decreases to homogeneous state c. Therefore, by adjusting the gap G appropriately, the desired homogeneous heating state can be achieved. The uniform heating coil 3 is designed to suit the specifications of the sheet width, thickness, and material of the material to be heated 1, or the uniform heating temperature. The heat equalization coil 3 can be adjusted according to the specifications of the width, thickness, material, etc. of the material to be heated 1 or the heat equalization temperature. Examiner noted that when the gap G is small, the relative position of the coils is adjustable so as to modify the distance of the coils from the face of the product that is closest to them. Examiner noted that Welch et al. teaches the manual adjuster that is capable of moving relative position of coils with respect to each other based on product size because user can visually determine the size of product to manually adjust the coil toward or away from the product to accommodate the product) and/or based on the length of the product.
Regarding claim 4, modified JP ‘194 discloses “the relative position of the coils with respect to each other is adjustable so as to modify the distance between two substantially parallel surfaces on which the coils extend” (JP ‘194, fig. 8 the reference teaches that the gap G between coils 8-8 and 9-9 is adjustable. Welch et al. teaches the manual adjuster that is capable of moving relative position of coils with respect to each other).
Regarding claim 5, modified JP ‘194 discloses “the relative position of the coils is adjustable so as to modify the distance of the coils from the face of the product that is closest to them” (JP ‘194, on page 38, When the heated material 1 enters the temperature rise zone by the temperature rise coil 2, the temperature is raised as shown in Figure 4. Next, it enters the heat equalization zone with the heat balance coil 3. If the gap G between the homogenizing coil 3 the heated material 1 is small, temperature gradually rises to the homogeneous state a. If the gap G is small, the temperature increases slowly. When the gap G is in the proper homogenizing position, it becomes homogeneous state b. If the gap G is large, temperature gradually decreases to homogeneous state c. Therefore, by adjusting the cap G appropriately, the desired homogeneous heating state can be achieved. The uniform heating coil 3 is designed to suit the specifications of the sheet width, thickness, and material of the material to be heated 1, or the uniform heating temperature. The heat equalization coil 3 can be adjusted according to the specifications of the width, thickness, material, etc. of the material to be heated 1 or the heat equalization temperature. Examiner noted that when the gap G is small, the relative position of the coils is adjustable so as to modify the distance of the coils from the face of the product that is closest to them. Welch et al. teaches the manual adjuster that is capable of moving relative position of coils with respect to each other).
Regarding claim 6, modified JP ‘194 discloses “Installation” (JP ‘194, fig.5) “for transverse flow induction heating of a product comprising at least one inductor according to 1” (as set forth in claim 1 above) and at least one power source (JP ‘194, 6) electrically connected to “said inductor” (JP ‘194, 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 7, modified JP ‘194 discloses wherein “the inductor comprises a means capable of modifying the distance of a coil from the face of the product that is closest to it” (JP ‘194, on pages 12, i.e., adjustment movement shaft 2 The upper end of the adjusting axis 20 is the feed torsion adjuster. Attached to the beam member 15a of the support frame 15 via the structure 21 … Torsion adjustment mechanism 21 is a servo motor not shown … this will cause the adjustable displacement axis 20 in the direction of its axis. Welch et al. also teaches the manual adjuster that is capable of moving relative position of coils with respect to each other).
Regarding claim 8, modified JP ‘194 discloses “it comprises means (JP ‘194, on pages 12, i.e., adjustment movement shaft 2 The upper end of the adjusting axis 20 is the feed torsion adjuster. Attached to the beam member 15a of the support frame 15 via the structure 21 … Torsion adjustment mechanism 21 is a servo motor not shown … this will cause the adjustable displacement axis 20 in the direction of its axis) “capable of modifying the relative position of a first coil with respect to a second coil based on the width of the product and/or based on the length of the product” (JP ‘194, on page 38, When the heated material 1 enters the temperature rise zone by the temperature rise coil 2, the temperature is raised as shown in Figure 4. Next, it enters the heat equalization zone with the heat balance coil 3. If the gap G between the homogenizing coil 3 the heated material 1 is small, temperature gradually rises to the homogeneous state a. If the gap G is small, the temperature increases slowly. When the gap G is in the proper homogenizing position, it becomes homogeneous state b. If the gap G is large, temperature gradually decreases to homogeneous state c. Therefore, by adjusting the cap G appropriately, the desired homogeneous heating state can be achieved. The uniform heating coil 3 is designed to suit the specifications of the sheet width, thickness, and material of the material to be heated 1, or the uniform heating temperature. The heat equalization coil 3 can be adjusted according to the specifications of the width, thickness, material, etc. of the material to be heated 1 or the heat equalization temperature. Examiner noted that the relative position between coil and the product can be adjusted based on the specifications of the sheet width, thickness, and material of the material to be heated 1).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H04-054194 in view of Ross (US 2002/0148830) and Welch et al. (US 6107613) as applied in claims 1-8 above, and further in view of Guastini (WO 2019102511).
Regarding claim 9, JP ‘194 discloses “the coils of an inductor disposed on one side of the central space of said inductor and the coils disposed on the other side of the central space” (8 and 9 at top and 8 and 9 at the bottom) supplied by “a power source (6).
JP ‘194 is silent regarding coil of an inductor disposed on one side of the central space of said inductor are supplied by a first power source of the at least one power source and the coil disposed on the other side of the central space are supplied by a second power source of the at least one power source.
Guastini teaches “coil of an inductor disposed on one side of the central space of said inductor are supplied by a first power source of the at least one power source and the coil disposed on the other side of the central space are supplied by a second power source of the at least one power source” (figs.1-3 show coil of inductor (upper 24) on one side of the central space of said inductor are supplied by a first power source (upper 36), and the coil (lower 24) disposed on the other side of the central space are supplied by a second power source (lower 36) of the at least one power source). The combination of JP’194 and Guastini would meet the claim limitation of “coils of an inductor disposed on one side of the central space of said inductor are supplied by a first power source of the at least one power source and the coils disposed on the other side of the central space are supplied by a second power source of the at least one power source” because JP’194 shows the upper coils and lower coils. Guastini teaches the upper coil supplied by a power source and lower coil supplied by another power source. One skilled in the art would have found it obvious to substitute JP ‘194’s power source arrangement with Guastini’s power sources arrangement are both recognized by the art for the same purpose of supplying power. MPEP 2144.06.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H04-054194 in view of Ross (US 2002/0148830) and Welch et al. (US 6107613) as applied in claims 1-8 above, and further in view of Welch et al. (US 6,107,613).
Regarding claim 10, modified JP ‘194 discloses the coils (JP’194, upper 8 and 9) near the central space being supplied by a first power source (Guastini, upper 36) of the at least one power source and the coils (JP’194, lower 8 and 9) near the product are supplied by a second power source (Guastini, lower 36) of the at least one power source.
Modified JP ‘194 is silent regarding the coils closest to the central space and the coils furthest from the product.
Welch et al. teaches “the coils closest to the central space and the coils furthest from the product” (the coils 46 and 48 can be closest to the central space and coils 50 and 52 and be furthest from the product because coils are adjustable and can be manually adjustable. Col.3 at lines 25-43, i.e., More particularly, the inductor turns 46, 48, 50, 52 comprise conventional copper inductor turns similar to the turns shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B, but with the important distinction of not being bolted to a fixed frame for support. It is an important feature of the invention that the inductor turns 46-52 are each supported by actuators 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70 which can adjust the position of the inductor turn to which it is attached. Although, as shown, the actuators comprise piston and cylinder assemblies which may be either electrically, hydraulically or pneumatically controlled; however, it is within the scope of the invention to include alternative structural members that can support and position the conductor turns such as chain and sprocket assemblies, hinges or slide beams and the like. Whatever structural support is employed need only reliably and predictably support the turns 46-52 and permit movement to a desired position for the improved heating of the workpiece. Manual adjusters could also be employed. This suggests user can manually adjust the coils 46 and 48 closest to the central space and the other coils 50 and 52 further away from the product at the central space). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify JP’194 with Welch et al., by adding Welch et al.’s actuators that can adjust the coils of inductors at desired location for heating (col.3 at lines 25-43) as taught by Welch et al.
Regarding claim 11, modified JP ‘194 discloses “it comprises at least two successive inductors in the longitudinal direction of the product” (Welch et al., 46 and 48 in the longitudinal of the product).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendment to claims overcome 35 USC 112 (a) rejections. Thus, 35 USC 112 (a) rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendment to claims changed the scope of invention and overcome prior rejections. However, examiner has introduced different reference in current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights