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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/06/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/06/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 04/06/2026. The previous 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn. Claims 1, 4-11, 14-16, and 18 remain pending for consideration.
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.
Claim 18 is 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.
Regarding claim 18, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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. This term renders claim 18 indefinite because it is unclear what “a temperature of about -30 degrees Celsius (C) … a temperature of about -15 degrees C” is. Thus, as used to qualify the temperatures of the freezing and refrigerating compartments, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redlich (US6266968B1), in view of Sakai et al. (JP5194742B2, herein after referred to as Sakai), and in further view of Han (KR20050121104A).
Regarding claim 1, Redlich teaches a refrigerator (disclosed “refrigerator” in the abstract) comprising: a plurality of storage compartments (CH1 and CH3 Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 1-5) including a refrigerating compartment (disclosed “fresh food compartments” in Col. 1 lines 17-20) and a freezing compartment (disclosed “freezer” in Col. 1 lines 17-20); a plurality of evaporators (EVAP1 and EVAP3 Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 1-5) arranged in series with each other (Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 1-5) and provided to correspond to each of the plurality of storage compartments (Col. 3 lines 1-5); a compressor (Fig. 1) configured to compress a refrigerant (Col. 2 lines 52-65) evaporated by the plurality of evaporators (Col. 2 lines 52-65); a condenser (Fig. 1) configured to condense the compressed refrigerant (Col. 2 lines 52-65); a plurality of evaporator temperature sensors (temperature sensors SE1 and SE2 Fig. 1) configured to detect a temperature (Col. 3 lines 22-42) of each of the plurality of evaporators (Col. 3 lines 22-42); and a controller (EV control Fig. 1) configured to: determine that excessive condensation (understood to be the condition where superheat exceeds the disclosed “preset value” Col. 3 lines 22-42) has occurred in the condenser based on a temperature difference (Col. 3 lines 22-42) between the plurality of evaporators (Col. 3 lines 22-42) being greater than or equal to a predetermined value (disclosed “preset value” in Col. 3 lines 22-42).
Redlich teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “a heat dissipation fan configured to cool the condenser”.
However, Sakai teaches a heat dissipation fan (first cooling fan 30 Fig. 3) configured to cool a condenser (paragraph [0043] and Fig. 3 where outdoor heat exchanger 7 corresponds to the condenser of Redlich) to release the heated air (paragraph [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Redlich to include “a heat dissipation fan configured to cool the condenser” in view of the teachings of Sakai to release the heated air.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the controller configured to: based on the determination that the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser, adjust an off-time of the heat dissipation fan to be increased while intermittently operating the heat dissipation fan”.
However, Han teaches a controller (microcomputer 17 Fig. 2b corresponds to the controller of Redlich) configured to: based on a determination that excessive condensation occurs (the process of going through steps S40, S50 and S42 Fig. 3 and paragraph [19] to avoid overcooling corresponds to the determination of the occurrence of excessive condensation of Redlich) in a condenser (the disclosed “condenser” in paragraph [9] corresponds to the condenser of Redlich), adjust an off-time of a heat dissipation fan (corresponds to the off-time of condenser fan motor 10 Fig. 2a where the fan of condenser fan motor 10 corresponds to the heat dissipation fan of Sakai) to be increased (Fig. 3 where the off time of condenser fan motor 10 goes from 0 in steps S40, S41, and S43 to 95 in Steps S40, S50, and S42) while intermittently operating the heat dissipation fan (Fig. 3 where condenser fan motor 10 is controlled through adjusting its duty cycle) to prevent overcooling of the cooling system (paragraph [8]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the controller configured to: based on the determination that the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser, adjust an off-time of the heat dissipation fan to be increased while intermittently operating the heat dissipation fan” in view of the teachings of Han to prevent overcooling of the cooling system.
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach further comprising: an external temperature sensor (air temperature sensor 120 Fig. 2 of Sakai) configured to detect an external temperature of outside air (paragraph [0062] of Sakai), wherein in response to the external temperature being less than a reference temperature (disclosed “15℃” in paragraph [0062] of Sakai), the controller is further configured to determine whether the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser (paragraphs [0063] and [0064] of Sakai where supercooling of external heat exchanger 7 is determined to occur at an outside temperature that is below 15℃ prompting the stoppage of first cooling fan 30).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach further comprising: a plurality of internal temperature sensors (temperature sensors S1 and S3 Fig. 1 of Redlich) configured to detect an internal temperature (Col. 6 lines 17-19 of Redlich) of each of the plurality of storage compartments (Col. 6 lines 17-19 of Redlich), wherein the controller is further configured to determine to start an operation (understood to be the operation described in Col. 3 lines 22-42 of Redlich) for determining whether the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser (a person skilled in the art would recognize that the operation disclosed in Col. 3 lines 22-42 of Redlich does not start until the compressor starts to run, and referring to Fig. 2 and Col. 4 lines 1-23 of Redlich, the compressor does not start to run until at least one compartment CHn is above a target temperature SPn) based on an internal temperature (understood to be the internal temperature of compartment CH3 Fig. 1 of Redlich) of a reference storage compartment (compartment Ch3 Fig. 1 of Redlich) corresponding to a reference evaporator (EVAP3 Fig. 1 of Redlich) located at an end (Fig. 1 of Redlich) with respect to a refrigerant flow (refrigerant flow disclosed in Fig. 1 of Redlich), between the plurality of evaporators (Fig. 1 of Redlich).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach wherein the controller is further configured to, in response to the internal temperature of the reference storage compartment being greater than a reference temperature (set point temperature SPn Fig. 2 of Redlich), determine to start an operation (understood to be the operation described in Col. 3 lines 22-42 of Redlich) for determining whether the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser (a person skilled in the art would recognize that the operation disclosed in Col. 3 lines 22-42 of Redlich does not start until the compressor starts to run, and referring to Fig. 2 and Col. 4 lines 1-23 of Redlich, the compressor does not start to run until at least one compartment CHn is above a target temperature SPn).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach wherein, in response to a continuous operation (understood to be the continuous operation of the compressor after startup for 2 minutes Col. 4 lines 9-23 of Redlich) of the compressor for a predetermined time (disclosed “2 minutes” in Col. 4 lines 9-23 of Redlich), the controller is further configured to identify whether the internal temperature of the reference storage compartment is greater than a reference temperature (disclosed “evaporator temperature signal TE” in Col. 4 lines 9-23 of Redlich).
Regarding claim 11, Redlich teaches a control method (understood to be the method used to determine the superheat value in Col. 3 lines 22-42) of a refrigerator (disclosed “refrigerator” in the abstract) that includes a plurality of storage compartments (CH1 and CH3 Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 1-5) including a refrigerating compartment (disclosed “fresh food compartments” in Col. 1 lines 17-20) and a freezing compartment (disclosed “freezer” in Col. 1 lines 17-20), a plurality of evaporators (EVAP1 and EVAP3 Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 1-5) arranged in series with each other (Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 1-5) and provided to correspond to each of the plurality of storage compartments (Col. 3 lines 1-5), a compressor (Fig. 1) configured to compress a refrigerant (Col. 2 lines 52-65) evaporated by the plurality of evaporators (Col. 2 lines 52-65), a condenser (Fig. 1) configured to condense the compressed refrigerant (Col. 2 lines 52-65), and a plurality of evaporator temperature sensors (temperature sensors SE1 and SE2 Fig. 1) configured to detect a temperature (Col. 3 lines 22-42) of each of the plurality of evaporators (Col. 3 lines 22-42), the control method comprising: determining that excessive condensation (understood to be the condition where superheat exceeds the disclosed “preset value” Col. 3 lines 22-42) has occurred in the condenser based on a temperature difference (Col. 3 lines 22-42) between the plurality of evaporators (Col. 3 lines 22-42) being greater than or equal to a predetermined value (disclosed “preset value” in Col. 3 lines 22-42).
Redlich teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the control method includes a heat dissipation fan configured to cool the condenser”.
However, Sakai teaches a control method (the control method described in paragraph [0062] corresponds to the control method of Redlich) that includes a heat dissipation fan (first cooling fan 30 Fig. 3) configured to cool a condenser (paragraph [0043] and Fig. 3 where outdoor heat exchanger 7 corresponds to the condenser of Redlich) to release the heated air (paragraph [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of Redlich to include “the control method includes a heat dissipation fan configured to cool the condenser” in view of the teachings of Sakai to release the heated air.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the control method comprising: based on the determination that the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser, adjusting an off-time of the heat dissipation fan to be increased while intermittently operating the heat dissipation fan”.
However, Han teaches a control method (the control method illustrated in Fig. 3 corresponds to the method of Redlich) comprising: based on a determination that an excessive condensation occurs (the process of going through steps S40, S50 and S42 Fig. 3 and paragraph [19] to avoid overcooling corresponds to the determination of the occurrence of excessive condensation of Redlich) in a condenser (the disclosed “condenser” in paragraph [9] corresponds to the condenser of Redlich), adjusting an off-time of a heat dissipation fan (corresponds to the off-time of condenser fan motor 10 Fig. 2a where the fan of condenser fan motor 10 corresponds to the heat dissipation fan of Sakai) to be increased (Fig. 3 where the off time of condenser fan motor 10 goes from 0 in steps S40, S41, and S43 to 95 in Steps S40, S50, and S42) while intermittently operating the heat dissipation fan (Fig. 3 where condenser fan motor 10 is controlled through adjusting its duty cycle) to prevent overcooling of the cooling system (paragraph [8]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “the control method comprising: based on the determination that the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser, adjusting an off-time of the heat dissipation fan to be increased while intermittently operating the heat dissipation fan” in view of the teachings of Han to prevent overcooling of the cooling system.
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach further comprising: starting the determining of whether the excessive condensation occurs (a person skilled in the art would recognize that the superheat determination disclosed by Redlich is not started until the compressor is running, and referring to Fig. 2 and Col. 4 lines 1-23 of Redlich, the compressor does not start to run until at least one compartment CHn is above a target temperature SPn) based on an internal temperature (understood to be the internal temperature of any of the CHn compartments Fig. 1 of Redlich) of a reference storage compartment (understood to be any of the CHn compartments Fig. 1 of Redlich) reaching a target temperature (setpoint temperature SPn Fig. 2 and Col. 3 lines 53-63 of Redlich).
Claims 4, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redlich, Sakai, and Han as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Lee (KR20070024022A).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach wherein the plurality of evaporators comprises: a first evaporator (EVAP1 Fig. 1 of Redlich) configured to receive a refrigerant from the condenser (Col. 3 lines 1-21 of Redlich), and a second evaporator (EVAP3 Fig. 1 of Redlich) configured to receive a refrigerant from the first evaporator (Col. 3 lines 1-21 of Redlich), and wherein the controller is further configured to determine that the excessive condensation has occurred in the condenser based on a temperature difference (Col. 3 lines 22-42 of Redlich) between the first evaporator and the second evaporator being greater than or equal to the predetermined value (Col. 3 lines 22-42 of Redlich).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the first evaporator provided to correspond to the refrigerating compartment, and the second evaporator provided to correspond to the freezing compartment”.
However, Lee teaches the first evaporator (evaporator 4 Fig. 2 which corresponds to the first evaporator of Redlich) provided to correspond to the refrigerating compartment (the disclosed “refrigerating compartment” in paragraph [4] of the Background section corresponds to the refrigerating compartment of Redlich), and the second evaporator (evaporator 3 Fig. 2 corresponds to the second evaporator of Redlich) provided to correspond to the freezing compartment (the disclosed “freezer compartment” in paragraph [4] of the Background section corresponds to the freezing compartment of Redlich) to maintain both the refrigerating and freezing compartments within specific temperatures (paragraph [4] of the Background section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the first evaporator provided to correspond to the refrigerating compartment, and the second evaporator provided to correspond to the freezing compartment” in view of the teachings of Lee to maintain both the refrigerating and freezing compartments within specific temperatures.
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach wherein the plurality of evaporators comprises: a first evaporator (EVAP1 Fig. 1 of Redlich) configured to receive a refrigerant from the condenser (Col. 3 lines 1-21 of Redlich), and a second evaporator (EVAP3 Fig. 1 of Redlich) configured to receive a refrigerant from the first evaporator (Col. 3 lines 1-21 of Redlich), and wherein the determining that the excessive condensation has occurred in the condenser comprises determining that the excessive condensation has occurred in the condenser based on a temperature difference (Col. 3 lines 22-42 of Redlich) between the first evaporator and the second evaporator being greater than or equal to the predetermined value (Col. 3 lines 22-42 of Redlich).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the first evaporator provided to correspond to the refrigerating compartment, and the second evaporator provided to correspond to the freezing compartment”.
However, Lee teaches the first evaporator (evaporator 4 Fig. 2 which corresponds to the first evaporator of Redlich) provided to correspond to the refrigerating compartment (the disclosed “refrigerating compartment” in paragraph [4] of the Background section corresponds to the refrigerating compartment of Redlich), and the second evaporator (evaporator 3 Fig. 2 corresponds to the second evaporator of Redlich) provided to correspond to the freezing compartment (the disclosed “freezer compartment” in paragraph [4] of the Background section corresponds to the freezing compartment of Redlich) to maintain both the refrigerating and freezing compartments within specific temperatures (paragraph [4] of the Background section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “the first evaporator provided to correspond to the refrigerating compartment, and the second evaporator provided to correspond to the freezing compartment” in view of the teachings of Lee to maintain both the refrigerating and freezing compartments within specific temperatures.
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings teach wherein the excessive condensation occurs in a state (understood to be the supercooling state described by Sakai in paragraphs [0063], [0064], and [0097]) in which the refrigerant is condensed more than that of a normal state (referring to paragraphs [0026], [0063], [0064], and [0097] of Sakai, a person skilled in the art would recognize that the supercooling state would lead to an over-condensation state at outdoor heat exchanger 7).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the normal state in which a temperature of an evaporator corresponding to the freezing compartment is maintained at a temperature of about -30 degrees Celsius (C) and a temperature of an evaporator corresponding to the refrigerating compartment is maintained at a temperature of about -15 degrees C”.
However, Lee teaches a normal state (the state of the refrigerator described in paragraph [4] of the Background section corresponds to the normal state of Sakai) in which a temperature (corresponds to the temperature of evaporator 3 Fig. 2 and paragraph [4] of the Background section) of an evaporator (evaporator 3 Fig. 2) corresponding to a freezing compartment (the disclosed “freezer compartment” in paragraph [4] of the Background section corresponds to the freezing compartment of Redlich) is maintained at a temperature of about -30 degrees Celsius (C) (paragraph [4] of the Background section) and a temperature (corresponds to the temperature of evaporator 4 Fig. 2 and paragraph [4] of the Background section) of an evaporator (evaporator 4 Fig. 2) corresponding to a refrigerating compartment (the disclosed “refrigerating compartment” in paragraph [4] of the Background section corresponds to the refrigerating compartment of Redlich) is maintained at a temperature of about -15 degrees C (paragraph [4] of the Background section) to maintain both the refrigerating and freezing compartments within specific temperatures (paragraph [4] of the Background section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the normal state in which a temperature of an evaporator corresponding to the freezing compartment is maintained at a temperature of about -30 degrees Celsius (C) and a temperature of an evaporator corresponding to the refrigerating compartment is maintained at a temperature of about -15 degrees C” in view of the teachings of Lee to maintain both the refrigerating and freezing compartments within specific temperatures.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redlich, Sakai, and Han as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Tagami (JP2010101569A).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach wherein, in response to the temperature difference between the plurality of evaporators being greater than the predetermined value (Col. 3 lines 22-42 of Redlich), the controller is further configured to determine that the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser (Col. 3 lines 22-42 of Redlich).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the temperature difference being equal to the predetermined value for a predetermined time”.
However, Tagami teaches the temperature difference (disclosed “temperature difference” in paragraph [0023] which corresponds to the temperature difference of Redlich) being equal to the predetermined value (disclosed “predetermined value” in paragraph [0023] which corresponds to the predetermined value of Redlich) for a predetermined time (understood to be the predetermined time that elapses in paragraph [0023]) to differentiate between a transient condition and a steady condition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the temperature difference being equal to the predetermined value for a predetermined time” in view of the teachings of Tagami to differentiate between a transient condition and a steady condition.
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach wherein the determining of whether the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser comprises, in response to the temperature difference between the plurality of evaporators being greater than the predetermined value (Col. 3 lines 22-42 of Redlich), determining that the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser (Col. 3 lines 22-42 of Redlich).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the temperature difference being equal to the predetermined value for a predetermined time”.
However, Tagami teaches the temperature difference (disclosed “temperature difference” in paragraph [0023] which corresponds to the temperature difference of Redlich) being equal to the predetermined value (disclosed “predetermined value” in paragraph [0023] which corresponds to the predetermined value of Redlich) for a predetermined time (understood to be the predetermined time that elapses in paragraph [0023]) to differentiate between a transient condition and a steady condition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the temperature difference being equal to the predetermined value for a predetermined time” in view of the teachings of Tagami to differentiate between a transient condition and a steady condition.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redlich, Sakai, and Han as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jun (JP2006010278A).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the controller is further configured to determine whether the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser at a predetermined time interval”.
However, Jun teaches wherein the controller (control device 22 Fig. 1 which corresponds to the controller of Redlich) is further configured to determine whether the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser (understood to be when ∆T > 1℃ at step S104 paragraph [0048] and Fig. 10) at a predetermined time interval (the process shown in Fig. 10 is done after one-minute intervals [paragraph [0048]) to continuously monitor the refrigeration system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the controller is further configured to determine whether the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser at a predetermined time interval” in view of the teachings of Jun to continuously monitor the refrigeration system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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, Jerry -Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights