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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed on 07/02/2026 are acknowledged and entered. According to the Amendments to the claims, claims 14, 17, 19-21 and 24-26 has /have been amended, claim 1-13 were previously cancelled, claims 32-33 has /have been cancelled, claims 34-35 has /have been added. Accordingly, claims 14-26, 28-31 and 34-35 are pending in the application with claims 28-31 previously withdrawn. An action on the merits of claims 14-26 and 34-35 are as follow.
The previous 112 (b) Claim Rejections and Drawing Objection are withdrawn in accordance with applicant's amendment to the claims with no new matter added.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant is advised that should claim 14 be found allowable, claim 26 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112
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.
A. Claim limitation “a heating unit” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “heating” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 14 and 26 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0048], Fig 7: a heating unit 12b.
B. Claim limitation “a heating element” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “element” coupled with functional language “heating” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 14 and 26 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0048], Fig 7: a heating element 32b.
C. Claim limitation “a control unit” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “control” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 14 and 26 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0050], Fig 8: a control unit 20c.
D. Claim limitation “a holding unit” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “holding” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 17 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0048], Fig 7: a holding unit 30b.
E. Claim limitation “a signal generation unit” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “signal generation” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 18 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0037], Fig 5: a signal generation unit 34a.
F. Claim limitation “a signal amplification unit” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “signal amplification” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 19 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0037], Fig 5: a signal amplification unit 38a.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 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.
Claims 14-26 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 14 and 26 recite the limitation “objects” in last line respectively rendering the claims indefinite. It is unclear what relation between this this “objects” and an object mentioned in line 8 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 20 recite the limitation “the sensor signals” in line 4 rendering the claims indefinite. It is unclear what relation between this this “the sensor signals” and the sensor signal mentioned in line 1 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 35 recites the limitation “the phase angle of the sensor signal” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 35 recites the limitation “the phase angle of the reference signal” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
The rest of the claims has also been rejected because each claim depends on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14-15, 17-18, 21, 24-26 and 34-35, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by JANG et al. (EP 3422810 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 14, JANG et al. disclose a hob apparatus, comprising:
a heating unit comprising a heating element (a first working coil 202, a second working coil 204, [0046], Fig 2);
a sensor unit (FIG. 6 is a circuit diagram illustrating an inductive sensing process using a loaded-object sensor 220, [0064]) separate from the heating unit comprising an electric resonant circuit, wherein the sensor unit is configured to detect a sensor signal (a sensor to receive the alternating current through the sensing coil 222 [0064], Fig 6); and
a control unit (control unit 602, [0044], Fig 6) configured to control the sensor unit and to analyze the sensor signal (include a sensor to receive the alternating current through the sensing coil 222 and to analyze the components of the received alternating current to determine changes in the attributes of the alternating current, [0064]), said control unit determining, in an operating state, a state variable of one or more of:
a presence of an object relative to the heating element,
a degree of cover of the heating element by the object, and/or
a property of the object (control unit 602 may determine that the loaded object has an induction heating property, [0067]),
wherein the determining of the state variable is based on a phase shift and an amplitude ratio between the sensor signal and a reference signal (the change in the inductance value L may greatly increase a change ϕ of the phase value ωt+ϕ of the alternating current Acos(ωt+ϕ) received through the sensing coil 222, [0066]). wherein the reference signal is detected by the sensor unit when objects are absent (When there is no loaded object proximate to the working coil 202… the magnetic and electric inductive phenomenon between the loaded object and the working coil 202 does not occur, [0075]).
Claim 15, embodied as an induction hob apparatus (see Title).
Claim 17, further comprising a holding unit (a coil base 206, [0046], Fig 2) configured to attach the heating element of the heating unit and at least one part of the sensor unit to one another (first working coil 202 may be mounted on the coil base 206, [0046]; a loaded-object sensor 220 according to one embodiment of the present disclosure may be provided in the central region of the first working coil 202, [0052], Fig 2).
Claim 18, wherein the control unit includes a signal generation unit to generate a signal for controlling the sensor unit (to apply an alternating current Acos(ωt) having a predetermined amplitude A and phase value ωt to the sensing coil 222 of the loaded-object sensor 220, [0064]).
Claim 21, wherein the control unit (control unit 602, [0044], Fig 6) is configured to store the reference signal (a predetermined first reference value, [0067]), and the reference signal comprises a difference between a variable of the sensor signal and a variable of the reference signal measured in a reference state (Clearly, “the control unit is” capable of “configured to store the reference signal, and the reference signal comprises comprises a difference between a variable of the sensor signal and a variable of the reference signal measured in a reference state” as claimed).
Claim 24, wherein the control unit (control unit 602, [0044], Fig 6) is configured to compare a phase angle of the sensor signal with a phase angle of the reference signal, and to compare an amplitude of the sensor signal with an amplitude of the reference signal (the change in the inductance value L may greatly increase a change ϕ of the phase value ωt+ϕ of the alternating current Acos(ωt+ϕ) received through the sensing coil 222, [0066]. Clearly, “the control unit is” capable of “to compare a phase angle of the sensor signal with a phase angle of the reference signal, and to compare an amplitude of the sensor signal with an amplitude of the reference signal” as claimed).
Claim 25, wherein the control unit (control unit 602, [0044], Fig 6) is configured to vary a frequency of the sensor signal until a phase angle of the sensor signal and a phase angle of the reference signal correspond for determining the state variable in the operating state (the change in the inductance value L may greatly increase a change ϕ of the phase value ωt+ϕ of the alternating current Acos(ωt+ϕ) received through the sensing coil 222, [0066]. Clearly, “the control unit is” capable of “configured to vary a frequency of the sensor signal until a phase angle of the sensor signal and a phase angle of the reference signal correspond for determining the state variable in the operating state” as claimed).
Regarding Independent Claim 26, JANG et al. disclose a hob, comprising a hob apparatus, said hob apparatus comprising:
a heating unit comprising a heating element (a first working coil 202, a second working coil 204, [0046], Fig 2),
a sensor unit (FIG. 6 is a circuit diagram illustrating an inductive sensing process using a loaded-object sensor 220, [0064]) separate from the heating unit, said sensor unit comprising an electric resonant circuit, wherein the sensor unit is configured to detect a sensor signal (a sensor to receive the alternating current through the sensing coil 222 [0064], Fig 6); and
a control unit (control unit 602, [0044], Fig 6) configured to control the sensor unit and to analyze the sensor signal (include a sensor to receive the alternating current through the sensing coil 222 and to analyze the components of the received alternating current to determine changes in the attributes of the alternating current, [0064]), wherein the control unit determines, in an operating state, a state variable of one or more of:
a presence of an object relative to the heating element,
a degree of cover of the heating element by the object, and/or
a property of the object (control unit 602 may determine that the loaded object has an induction heating property, [0067]),
wherein the determining of the state variable is based on a phase shift and an amplitude ratio between the sensor signal and a reference signal (the change in the inductance value L may greatly increase a change ϕ of the phase value ωt+ϕ of the alternating current Acos(ωt+ϕ) received through the sensing coil 222, [0066]). wherein the reference signal is detected by the sensor unit when objects are absent (When there is no loaded object proximate to the working coil 202… the magnetic and electric inductive phenomenon between the loaded object and the working coil 202 does not occur, [0075]).
Claim 34, wherein the state variable is one or more of: a presence of cookware (to detect a specific object with inductive heating property, [0019]), a degree of cover of the heating element by the cookware, a shape of the cookware, a size of the cookware, an electrical characteristic of the cookware, and an electromagnetic characteristic of the cookware.
Claim 35, wherein determining the state variable includes varying the frequency of the sensor signal until the phase angle of the sensor signal corresponds to the phase angle of the reference signal (the change in the inductance value L may greatly increase a change ϕ of the phase value ωt+ϕ of the alternating current Acos(ωt+ϕ) received through the sensing coil 222, [0066]).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JANG et al. (EP 3422810 A1) in view of Carretero Chamarro et al. (US 2022/0007469 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, JANG et al. teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claim 16.
Carretero Chamarro et al. teach a hob apparatus (see Title), and Claim 16, further comprising a plate unit (a substrate 36a, [0066], Figs 2-8) arranged above the heating unit and including at least part of the sensor unit (36a arranged above the heating unit 12a and including at least part of the sensor unit 14a, [0059, 0063], Fig 2. Note: “the heating unit” and “the sensor unit” taught by JANG et al. already).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify JANG et al. with Carretero Chamarro et al.’s further teaching of Claim 16; because Carretero Chamarro et al. teach, in Para. [0019], of providing an excellent sensor unit with at least one substrate, on which the plurality of sensor elements of the sensor unit would be convenient arranged.
Claims 19-20 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JANG et al. (EP 3422810 A1) in view of Barbie (US 2006/0001423 A1).
Regarding Claims 19-20, JANG et al. teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claims 19-20 and 22-23.
Barbie teaches a hob apparatus (see Title), and Claim 19, wherein the control unit (“the control unit” taught by JANG et al. already) includes a signal amplification unit for amplifying the sensor signal (using an additional lock-in amplifier… detecting the piezo signal at the resonant frequency of the sample holder, [0089]. Note: “the sensor signal” taught by JANG et al. already) and for increasing the signal to noise ratio in respect of an interference signal.
Claim 20, wherein the sensor signal is one of a plurality of sensor signals, and an initial sensor signal has a frequency which corresponds substantially to a resonant frequency of the electric resonant circuit (to detect the signal at the resonant frequency, [0089]), wherein a frequency of the sensor signals is varied until the phase shift from a respective sensor signal to the reference signal is zero and the frequency at which the phase shift is zero (relative lack of a phase change may be interpreted… , [0065], JANG et al.) is stored as an associated frequency (enables tuning of the value of the nuclear magnetic resonance frequency detected, [0062]), and wherein the state variable is determined based on a comparison of the associated frequency to the resonant frequency (comparing the data from the same inductive coil detector, [0061]).
Claim 22, wherein the control unit (Note: “the control unit” taught by JANG et al. already) includes a detection unit for detecting the phase shift and/or an amplitude (The total amplitude detection mode of the Stanford Research Systems SR830 Lock-In Amplifier was used, [0089]).
Claim 23, wherein the detection unit is configured as a lock-in amplifier (can be sensitively detected using an additional lock-in amplifier, [0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify JANG et al. with Barbie’s further teaching of Claims 19-20 and 22-23; because Barbie teaches, in Abstract, of providing an excellent signal amplifier with an amplification of the generated signal of an inductive coil or the detected signal of an inductive coil.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 14-26 and 34-35 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action as stated above.
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The same prior art used under the Non-Final Rejection been able to cover all the limitations of the amended claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 EST. 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, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or supervisor Edward Landrum can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866/217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800/786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571/272-1000.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights