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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 27 February 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the Claim objections. The Claim objections have been withdrawn.
A Claim interpretation section has been added in the present Office action.
Applicant’s amendments have provided grounds for a 35 USC 112 rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. After an updated search, an additional reference was identified, which teaches the amended portions of the claims. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 27 February 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1, 3, and 13 have been amended.
Claims 1-11, 13, and 15-20 are pending.
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 the following:
“heating assembly” in claim 13: The generic placeholder is “assembly” and the functional limitation is “heating.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes “electric resistance or gas burner heating elements.”
“controller” in claim 13: The generic placeholder is “controller” (defined as a means for controlling) and the functional limitation is “configured to: detect a temperature drop…obtain a rolling difference…determine, from the rolling difference in temperature, whether cookware is removed…reduce or terminate an energy input.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “processor.”
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.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1, the limitation “generating, in response to determining cookware is removed, a signal corresponding to decreasing or terminating an energy input to the heating assembly” and in claim 13, the limitation “reduce or terminate an energy input to the heating assembly in response to determining cookware is removed” are not mentioned in the original Specification or in the original set of claims. Instead of disclosing a sequential set of events where a signal in generated in response to a determination that cookware is removed, the Specification discloses this set of events as being concurrent: “In particular embodiments, method 400 includes at 460 reducing or eliminating energy input to the heating assembly when cookware removal is determined.” Moreover, the amended fig. 4 that was filed 15 October 2025 shows the opposite relationship, i.e., that a determination of removal of cookware is made in response to the reduction or termination of energy:
PNG
media_image1.png
326
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As a result, by using these limitations, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application. The Applicant can overcome this rejection by reverting to “when” instead of using “in response to.”
Claims 2-11 and 15-20 are rejected based on their dependency to the independent claims.
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 1-11, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne (US-4740664-A) in view of Lee et al. (US-20080237215-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Payne teaches a computer-implemented method (microprocessor 40, fig. 7; similarly, para 0027 of the Specification in the Instant Application discloses using a microprocessor as the controller) for controlling a heating assembly (heating units 14a-14d, fig. 7; “open coil electric resistive heater or gas burner,” column 1, lines 15-17) of a cooktop appliance (“glass-ceramic cooktop appliance,” abstract), the method comprising:
detecting a temperature drop (“rate of change is to be updated,” column 16, lines 44-45; in block 168, temperature measurements are made; a temperature drop is not explicitly disclosed) during an observation period (block 168, fig. 10; “approximately eight seconds,” column 16, line 54);
a wait period (two second intervals, step 164, fig. 10);
obtaining a rolling difference (“rate of change of temperature, TMPSLP,” column 16, line 15; a “drop” is not explicitly disclosed) in temperature during a calculation period (duration of block 170, fig. 10);
determining, from the rolling difference in temperature (block 170 in fig. 10 is input into fig. 11), whether cookware is removed based on a comparison (step 186, fig. 11) of a quantity of differences (Payne teaches calculating a difference of GLSTMP4 and GLSMPT0, which is construed as a quantity; Payne teaches four time temperatures, fig. 11; similarly, fig. 4 on the Instant Application teaches a rolling difference of four temperatures) above (“YES” after step 186, fig. 11; the quantity in the “YES” branch is one if “YES” is determined or zero if “NO” is determined) a temperature magnitude (“0.4° C/sec,” column 17, lines 13-15) to a quantity of differences below the temperature magnitude (“NO” after step 186, fig. 11; the quantity in the “NO” branch is zero if “YES” is determined or one if “NO” is determined); and
generating, in response to determining cookware is removed, a signal (step 188 if “YES” after step 186, fig. 11) corresponding to decreasing (power level is decreased by 1 in step 188, fig. 11) or terminating an energy input to the heating assembly (not explicitly disclosed).
Payne does not explicitly disclose a temperature drop of a threshold magnitude; allowing for temperature decrease during a wait period.
Payne, figs. 10-11
PNG
media_image2.png
554
304
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
748
516
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, in the same field of endeavor of controlling heating for cooktop appliances, Lee teaches a temperature drop (temperature drop from Y1 to Y2, figs. 8 and 11; “change of a temperature detected,” para 0080) of a threshold magnitude (difference between Y1 and Y2, figs. 8 and 11); allowing for temperature decrease during a wait period (temperature decreases between Z1 and Z2, figs. 8 and 11).
Lee, figs. 8 and 11
PNG
media_image4.png
558
685
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
591
719
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Payne, in view of the teachings of Lee, by reverting back and forth between a temperature Y2 and Y1, as taught by Lee, during the rate calculation routine, as taught by Payne in fig. 10, in order to determine whether a load is present or absent on the ceramic plate by using an on/off sequence for the heat source based on the detected temperature, because the temperature change rate of the ceramic plate can be used to determined whether or not a cooking container is placed on the heating cooking apparatus, for the advantage of preventing the ceramic plate from overheating (Lee, para 0004; in Lee, fig. 8 shows no cooking container, and fig. 11 shows that a cooking container is present; similar to what Payne teaches, fig. 8 of Lee shows a faster rate of temperature change for the no-load condition than fig. 11 of Lee, which shows the presence of a container because there is a slow rate of change).
Regarding claim 2, Payne teaches the method comprising: determining that cookware is removed (step 186, fig. 11) from the heating assembly when a ratio of the quantity of differences above the temperature magnitude to the quantity of differences below the temperature magnitude (construed as a ratio of 1:0 if “YES” after step 186 or 0:1 if “NO” after step 186) exceeds a ratio limit (the claimed “ratio limit” is construed as a ratio of 0:0).
Regarding claim 3, Payne teaches determining whether cookware is removed (step 186, fig. 11) comprises: tabulating each difference (“GLSTMP0- GLSTMP4,” fig. 10) between a current temperature (“most recent temperature measurement,” column 16, line 52) and a previous temperature (“oldest stored temperature,” column 16, line 52) over a rolling basis through a fourth period of time (block 168, fig. 10); and comparing (step 174, fig. 11) the current temperature to a temperature threshold (“480° C,” column 17, line 21).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Payne in view of Lee as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 4. Specifically, Payne teaches obtaining a first rolling difference in temperature (“GLSTMP0- GLSTMP4,” fig. 10) over a first period of time (time period between GLSTMP0 and GLSTMP4, fig. 10; construed as a time period of eight seconds). Additionally, Lee teaches wherein detecting the temperature drop of the threshold magnitude during the observation period (temperature drop from Y1 to Y2, figs. 8 and 11; “change of a temperature detected,” para 0080; construed as starting at time Z1, figs. 8 and 11).
Regarding claim 5, Payne teaches wherein the observation period (block 168, fig. 10) comprises a first period of time (time period between GLSTMP0 and GLSTMP4, fig. 10; construed as a time period of eight seconds) forming a rolling time window (block 168, fig. 10) during which the temperature drop of the threshold magnitude is detected (TMPGLS is calculated based on GLSTMP0 and GLSTMP4, fig. 10).
Regarding claim 6, Payne teaches wherein the waiting period (step 164, fig. 10) comprises idling for a second period of time (two seconds, column 16, line 42) following detection of the temperature drop exceeding the threshold magnitude (step 170, fig. 10; flow repeats itself; construed such that step 164 can follow step 170); and obtaining temperature signals during a third period of time following the second period of time (“GLSTMP1 -> GLSTMP2,” fig. 10).
Regarding claim 7, Payne teaches the method comprising: generating a first timestamp (GLSTMP4, fig. 10; “the oldest stored temperature measurement GLSTMP4 is approximately eight seconds,” column 16, lines 53-54; a temperature measurement based on time is construed as a timestamp) corresponding to when the temperature drop exceeds the threshold magnitude (“GLSTMP3 -> GLSTMP4,” fig. 10); and generating a second timestamp (GLSTMP1, fig. 10) corresponding to initialization of the third period of time (“GLSTMP1 -> GLSTMP2,” fig. 10; “the previous reading is stored as GLSTMP1,” column 16, lines 46-47).
Regarding claim 8, Payne teaches the method comprising: determining (step 186, fig. 11) a temperature decrease (“GLSTMP0- GLSTMP4,” fig. 10) greater than a temperature magnitude (“0.4° C/sec,” column 17, lines 13-15) between the second timestamp (GLSTMP0, fig. 10) and the first timestamp (GLSTMP4, fig. 10).
Regarding claim 9, Payne teaches the method comprising: generating a third timestamp (“GLSTMP0,” fig. 10) corresponding to initialization of a fourth period of time (duration of step 170, fig. 10), wherein the fourth period of time corresponds to the calculation period (duration of block 170, fig. 10).
Regarding claim 10, Payne teaches wherein obtaining the rolling difference in temperature during the calculation period (duration of block 170, fig. 10) comprises a difference (step 170, fig. 10) between a current temperature (GLSTMP0, fig. 10) and a previous temperature (GLSTMP4, fig. 10) at a predetermined amount of time before the current temperature (“eight seconds,” column 16, line 54).
Regarding claim 11, Payne teaches wherein an initial current temperature (“the current value of GLSTMP is stored as GLSTMPO,” column 16, lines 45-46) corresponds substantially to the third timestamp (“GLSTMP0,” fig. 10) and an initial previous temperature (GSLTMP 1 takes place before GLSTMP0, fig. 10) corresponds substantially to the second timestamp (“GLSTMP1,” fig. 10).
Regarding claim 13, Payne teaches a cooktop appliance (“glass-ceramic cooktop appliance,” abstract), comprising:
a heating assembly (heating units 14a-14d, fig. 7; “open coil electric resistive heater or gas burner,” column 1, lines 15-17); and
a controller (microprocessor 40, fig. 7; construed as processor; similarly, para 0027 of the Specification in the Instant Application discloses using a microprocessor as the controller) in operative communication with the heating assembly (fig. 7), the controller configured to:
detect a temperature drop (“rate of change is to be updated,” column 16, lines 44-45; in block 168, temperature measurements are made; a temperature drop is not explicitly disclosed) within a first period of time (time period between GLSTMP0 and GLSTMP4, fig. 10; “approximately eight seconds,” column 16, line 54);
after a second period of time (step 164 fig. 10; construed as a time period of two seconds) from detection of the temperature drop of the threshold magnitude (step 164 takes place iteratively every two seconds after detection during steps 170 and 172, column 16, lines 42-43), obtain a temperature signal during a third period of time (“GLSTMP4 -> GLSTMP3,” fig. 10);
obtain a rolling difference in temperature over a fourth period of time (“GLSTMP0 -> GLSTMP1,” fig. 10; construed as a time period of two seconds) following the third period of time;
determine, from the rolling difference in temperature (block 170 in fig. 10 is input into fig. 11), whether cookware is removed based on a comparison (step 186, fig. 11) of a quantity of differences (Payne teaches calculating a difference of GLSTMP4 and GLSMPT0, which is construed as a quantity; Payne teaches four time temperatures, fig. 11; similarly, fig. 4 on the Instant Application teaches a rolling difference of four temperatures) above (“YES” after step 186, fig. 11; the quantity in the “YES” branch is one if “YES” is determined or zero if “NO” is determined) a temperature magnitude (“0.4° C/sec,” column 17, lines 13-15) to a quantity of differences below the temperature magnitude (“NO” after step 186, fig. 11; the quantity in the “NO” branch is zero if “YES” is determined or one if “NO” is determined); and
reduce or terminate an energy input to the heating assembly in response to determining based on whether cookware is determined to be removed (step 188 if “YES” after step 186, fig. 11; reduces the power level by 1; terminating the energy input is not explicitly disclosed).
Payne does not explicitly disclose a temperature drop of a threshold magnitude.
However, in the same field of endeavor of controlling heating for cooktop appliances, Lee teaches a temperature drop (temperature drop from Y1 to Y2, figs. 8 and 11; “change of a temperature detected,” para 0080) of a threshold magnitude (difference between Y1 and Y2, figs. 8 and 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Payne, in view of the teachings of Lee, by reverting back and forth between a temperature Y2 and Y1, as taught by Lee, during the rate calculation routine, as taught by Payne in fig. 10, in order to determine whether a load is present or absent on the ceramic plate by using an on/off sequence for the heat source based on the detected temperature, because the temperature change rate of the ceramic plate can be used to determined whether or not a cooking container is placed on the heating cooking apparatus, for the advantage of preventing the ceramic plate from overheating (Lee, para 0004; in Lee, fig. 8 shows no cooking container, and fig. 11 shows that a cooking container is present; similar to what Payne teaches, fig. 8 of Lee shows a faster rate of temperature change for the no-load condition than fig. 11 of Lee, which shows the presence of a container because there is a slow rate of change).
Regarding claim 15, Payne teaches the controller (microprocessor 40, fig. 7) configured to: determine that cookware is removed from the heating assembly (step 186, fig. 11) when a ratio of the quantity of differences above the temperature magnitude to the quantity of differences below the temperature magnitude (construed as a ratio of 1:0 if “YES” after step 186 or 0:1 if “NO” after step 186) exceeds a ratio limit (the claimed “ratio limit” is construed as a ratio of 0:0).
Regarding claim 16, Payne teaches wherein determining whether cookware is removed comprises: tabulating each difference (“GLSTMP0- GLSTMP4,” fig. 10) between a current temperature (GLSTMP0, fig. 10) and a previous temperature (GLSTMP4, fig. 10) over a rolling basis (the calculations in block 168, fig. 10, is construed as tabulating over or a rolling basis) through the fourth period of time (“GLSTMP0 -> GLSTMP1,” fig. 10; difference calculation is based on GLSTMP0); and comparing (step 174, fig. 11) the current temperature to a temperature threshold (“480° C,” column 17, line 21).
Regarding claim 17, Payne teaches the controller (microprocessor 40, fig. 7) configured to: obtain a first rolling difference (“GLSTMP0- GLSTMP4,” fig. 10) in temperature over the first period of time (time period between GLSTMP0 and GLSTMP4, fig. 10).
Regarding claim 18, Payne teaches the controller (microprocessor 40, fig. 7) configured to: generate a first timestamp (GSLTMP0, fig. 10) corresponding to when the temperature drop exceeds the threshold magnitude (step 186, fig. 11); generate a second timestamp (GSLTMP4, fig. 10) corresponding to initialization of the third period of time (“GLSTMP4 -> GLSTMP3,” fig. 10); and generate a third timestamp (GSLTMP0, fig. 10) corresponding to initialization of the fourth period of time (“GLSTMP0 -> GLSTMP1,” fig. 10).
Regarding claim 19, Payne teaches the controller (microprocessor 40, fig. 7) configured to: determine a temperature decrease (TMPLP, fig. 10; “The rate of change of temperature, TMPSLP, is calculated as the difference between the most recent measurement and the oldest stored measurement,” column 16, lines 55-57) greater than a temperature magnitude (“0.4° C/sec,” column 17, lines 13-15) between the second timestamp (GSLTMP4, fig. 10) and the first timestamp (GSLTMP0, fig. 10).
Regarding claim 20, Payne teaches the controller (microprocessor 40, fig. 7) configured to: obtain the rolling difference in temperature during the fourth period of time (“GLSTMP0 -> GLSTMP1,” fig. 10) comprising a difference between a current temperature (“the current value of GLSTMP is stored as GLSTMPO,” column 16, lines 45-46) and a previous temperature (GLSTMP4, fig. 10), wherein an initial current temperature corresponds substantially to the third timestamp (GSLTMP0, fig. 10) and an initial previous temperature corresponds substantially to the second timestamp (GSLTMP4, fig. 10).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 27 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Pages 6-7 of the Applicant’s arguments refer to paragraphs 0037-0042 of the Specification for support for the limitation: “generating, in response to determining cookware is removed, a signal corresponding to decreasing or terminating an energy input to the heating assembly.” The examiner considered these paragraphs and could not find mention of this description in these paragraphs. However, the examiner agrees that the paragraph 0037 discloses “reducing or eliminating energy input to the heating assembly when cookware removal is determined.” The Applicant can overcome the new-matter rejection by using “when” instead of “in response to” in claims 1 and 13.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Payne combined with Lee.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Norman et al. (US-20170067648-A1) teach detecting a rate of temperature change.
Kim et al. (US-20190268979-A1) teach determining whether a load is present based on a rate temperature change.
Bailey et al. (US-20220065457-A1) teach measuring temperature changes using thermal images.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 5/27/2026
Prosecution Insights