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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 9 June 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings have overcome most of the Drawing objection. However, there is grounds for another Drawing objection in the drawings that were filed on 9 June 2026.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the Claim objections. The Claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome most of the 35 USC 112(b) rejections. However, one of the 35 USC 112(b) rejection has not been addressed. Therefore, there is still grounds for a 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 9 June 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the claims remain rejected as obvious in view of the prior art.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 9 June 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-2, 4, 13-15, 18, and 27-28 have been amended. Claims 11 and 25 have been cancelled. Claims 32-33 are new.
Claims 1-2,4-7,13-15,17-18,20,22-24,27-28 and 31-33 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Australia Application No. 2020903081, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Figures 19-21B from the drawings and their corresponding description in paragraph 0075 from the specification are present in the Instant Application but are not included in AU2020903081. However, these figures and description were included in the international application- PCT/AU2021/050961. These figures and the paragraph describe the “integrated” gasket that is currently recited in claims 15 and 31. As a result, the effective filing date of claims 15, 17, 31, and 33 is 25 August 2021 (based on the benefit of the filing date for PCT/AU2021/050961). The effective filing date for the remaining claims is 28 August 2020 (based on the benefit of the filing date for AU2020903081).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Heating area 120 points to the housing, and housing 110 points to the heating area in fig. 1 (referring to the drawings filed 9 June 2026).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-2, 4-7, 13-15, 17, 24, and 31 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.
Claims 1 and 24 recite “a seat located opposite the inner wall.” It is unclear what the claimed seat is “opposite” to. Initially, the examiner understood this limitation such that bracket is on one side of the inner wall and the seat on the opposite side of the inner wall. However, the drawings show a seat 142 that is on the same side of the inner wall as the bracket 140 (fig. 5 in the Instant application). Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree of the term “opposite,” as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claims 2, 4-7, 13-15, 17, and 31 are rejected based on their dependency to claims 1 and 24.
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 1-2, 4-5, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thie et al. (WO-2020000056-A1) in view of Tofaili et al. (WO-2018107206-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Thie teaches a heatable kitchen device (“Toaster,” title) including:
a housing (housing 12, fig. 4) having an outer wall (wall 46, fig. 7) and an inner wall (wall 48, fig. 7; walls 48a and 48b, fig. 55A);
a heating area (cavities 25a and 25b, fig. 4) within the housing for receiving foodstuff to be heated (para 0159, page 17);
a heating element (heating elements 28, figs. 1 and 6) located between the heating area (cavities 25a and 25b, fig. 6) and the inner wall (inner wall 48, fig. 6);
a bracket (sensor sub-assembly 232, fig. 55A) mounted to the inner wall (inner wall 48a, fig. 55A) adjacent the heating area, the bracket including:
a seat (left side assembly 232, annotated fig. 55) located opposite the inner wall (inner wall 48a, fig. 55A), the seat receiving a sensor assembly (sensor sub-assembly component 234, fig. 55);
a first aperture (annotated fig. 55A below) through the bracket to the seat (the apertures extend through the sub-assembly 232 to the left side to receive the sensors 52, figs. 55-55A), the first aperture having an area (cross sectional area of annotated “first aperture,” annotated fig. 55A below); and
a second aperture (annotated fig. 55A below) through the bracket to the seat (the apertures extend through the sub-assembly 232 to the left side to receive the sensors 52, figs. 55-55A), the second aperture having an area (cross sectional area of annotated “second aperture,” annotated fig. 55A below),
wherein the inner wall has an opening that is larger than the combined areas of the apertures (wall 48b has an opening to accommodate the apertures, annotated fig. 55A) to allow the sensor assembly to detect a property of the foodstuff (fig. 6; para 0164, page 20)
wherein the bracket includes a first rib (annotated in fig. 55A below) on at least one edge of the first aperture (bottom edge of the left “first aperture,” annotated in fig. 55A below) to reduce spillage of the test signal from the first aperture (the edge is construed as reducing spillage from the sensors 52 because the edge is part of an aperture that limits the amount of light that is directed from the aperture).
Thie, figs. 55 and 55A (annotated)
PNG
media_image1.png
555
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
474
531
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
778
691
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thie does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor assembly includes: an emitter located adjacent the first aperture so as to emit a test signal to the foodstuff in the heating area; and a receiver located adjacent the second aperture so as to receive the test signal when reflected by the foodstuff in the heating area.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heatable kitchen devices, Tofaili teaches wherein the sensor assembly includes: an emitter (LED 43, fig. 13) located adjacent the first aperture (right aperture 47, fig. 13) so as to emit a test signal to the foodstuff in the heating area (“light emitted by the LED 43 impinges on the food product being heated,” page 12); and a receiver (sensor 41, fig. 13; “reflected beam then returning to the sensors 40, 41 and 44,” para 0079, page 12; because the beam returns to the sensor, sensor 41 is construed as a receiver) located adjacent the second aperture (second from the right aperture 47, fig. 13) so as to receive the test signal when reflected by the foodstuff in the heating area (para 0079, page 12).
Tofaili, fig. 13
PNG
media_image4.png
714
1022
media_image4.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 Thie, in view of the teachings of Tofaili, by using LED sensors, as taught by Tofaili, as the sensors 52, as taught by Thie, in order to use light sensors that produce a signal that is indicative of a chromatic property of the toast, which can be used to determine the degree to which the bread is toasted (Tofaili, paras 0003 and 0065).
Regarding claim 2, Thie teaches wherein the first aperture and the second aperture (annotated in fig. 55A above) have sloped sidewalls (reflector tabs 54, fig. 6; the reflector tabs 54 are construed as being sloped sidewalls for both apertures, i.e., the claim does not require that each aperture have sloped sidewalls), such that the area of the aperture changes from an interior side of the inner wall facing the foodstuff to an exterior side of the inner wall facing the bracket, wherein the sidewalls are sloped such that the area of the apertures at the interior side is larger than the area of the apertures at the exterior side (interior side is larger than exterior side, annotated fig. 6).
Thie, fig. 6 (annotated)
PNG
media_image5.png
554
915
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Thie teaches wherein the first aperture and the second aperture are adjacent and separated by a wall with a wall thickness.
Thie, fig. 6 (annotated)
PNG
media_image6.png
605
802
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Thie teaches wherein the bracket further includes: a spacer to mount the bracket to the inner wall (annotated in fig. 55A below).
Thie, fig. 55A (annotated)
PNG
media_image7.png
415
520
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Thie does not explicitly disclose to create an airgap between the bracket and the inner wall.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heatable kitchen devices, Tofaili teaches to create an airgap (“channels” produced by projections 22, which are construed as spacers) between the bracket and the inner wall (wall 10, fig. 14).
Tofaili, fig. 14
PNG
media_image8.png
1173
956
media_image8.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 Thie, in view of the teachings of Tofaili, by creating channels, as taught by Tofaili, between the wall 48 and the bracket sub-assembly 232 using the spacers that are already on the sub-assembly 232, as taught by Thie, in order to provide spacing that for air passages that cool the sensor assembly, preventing the sensor assembly from overheating (Tofaili, para 0015).
Regarding claim 13, Thie teaches wherein the bracket further includes a second rib (please see annotated fig. 55A above) on at least one edge of the second aperture (top edge of the construed “second aperture,” annotated fig. 55A above) to reduce spillage of an unreflected test signal to the receiver (the top edge of the aperture is construed as limiting the amount of light that is directed through the aperture), and wherein the second rib includes a single rib extending along an edge of each of the two first apertures and the second aperture (the construed second rib is construed as being a single rib that extends along the top edge of the first apertures and second aperture, fig. 55A annotated) and the bracket includes two of the first apertures (annotated in fig. 55A above), the two first apertures being located on opposite sides of the second aperture (annotated in fig. 55A above; the construed first apertures are on either side of the second aperture).
Thie does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor assembly includes two emitters.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heatable kitchen devices, Tofaili teaches wherein the sensor assembly includes two emitters (two light emitting diodes 210, fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Thie, in view of the teachings of Tofaili, by using two outer LEDs and an inner detector, as taught by Tofaili, as the sensors 52, as taught by Thie, in order to detect the light from two different LEDs striking at two different locations on the bread, for the advantage of using chromatic measurements represent different locations, ensuring that the bread is evenly toasted at different locations (Tofaili, para 0062; fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Thie teaches wherein the bracket further includes a second rib (please see annotated fig. 55A above) on at least one edge of the second aperture (top edge of the construed “second aperture,” annotated fig. 55A above) to reduce spillage of an unreflected test signal to the receiver (the top edge of the aperture is construed as limiting the amount of light that is directed through the aperture), and the bracket includes two of the first apertures (annotated in fig. 55A above), the two first apertures being located on opposite sides of the second aperture (annotated in fig. 55A above; the construed first apertures are on either side of the second aperture), and wherein the two first apertures each have a vertical edge on a side opposite the second aperture (please see annotated fig. 55A above; the construed “vertical edges” are on the outer sides of the two first apertures), the vertical edge being unobstructed by the first rib and the second rib (the vertical edges are vertical and the first and second ribs are horizontal, annotated fig. 5A above; the vertical edges are construed as not obstructing the horizontal ribs).
Thie does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor assembly includes two emitters.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heatable kitchen devices, Tofaili teaches wherein the sensor assembly includes two emitters (two light emitting diodes 210, fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Thie, in view of the teachings of Tofaili, by using two outer LEDs and an inner detector, as taught by Tofaili, as the sensors 52, as taught by Thie, in order to detect the light from two different LEDs striking at two different locations on the bread, for the advantage of using chromatic measurements represent different locations, ensuring that the bread is evenly toasted at different locations (Tofaili, para 0062; fig. 4).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thie et al (WO-2020000056-A1) in view of Tofaili et al. (WO-2018107206-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Mothrath et al. (US-4913046-A).
Regarding claim 6, Thie teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the housing further includes: a lower air volume between the inner wall and the outer wall below the sensor assembly; and an upper air volume above the sensor assembly, wherein the bracket has a channel connecting the lower air volume to the upper air volume, the channel being in thermal communication with the sensor assembly.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heatable kitchen devices, Mothrath teaches wherein the housing (outer housing of fig. 1) further includes: a lower air volume (annotated in fig. 1 below) between the inner wall (wall 6, fig. 1) and the outer wall (outer casing wall 2, fig. 1) below the sensor assembly (sensing element 1, fig. 1); and an upper air volume (annotated in fig. 1 below; similar to how the “upper air volume” is described in in paragraph 0069 of the specification in the Instant Application as extending into the heating area, the upper air volume is construed as extending into the space of the heating area, as shown in annotated fig. 1 below) above the sensor assembly (the left end of the construed “upper air volume” is above sensing element 1, fig. 1), wherein the bracket has a channel (upward flow channel 5a, fig. 1) connecting the lower air volume to the upper air volume (as shown in fig. 1), the channel being in thermal communication with the sensor assembly (“path of the air current L affords the further advantage of also cooling the sensing element 1,” column 3, lines 60-61).
Mothrath, fig. 1 (annotated)
PNG
media_image9.png
521
451
media_image9.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 Thie, in view of the teachings of Mothrath, by creating channels 5a and 5b for flowing an air current L, as taught by Mothrath, within the interior 22, as taught by Thie, in order to using an air current that cools the sensing element to a temperature between 50-70°C, even though the heating area is at a temperature of about 900°C, for the advantage of inhibiting the conduction of heat, which can overheat the electronic sensing element (Mothrath, column 3, lines 50-63).
Regarding claim 7, Thie teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the upper air volume is located in the heating area and the inner wall has a second opening above the opening, the second opening connecting the heating area to the channel such that air from the channel is able to flow into the heating area and the upper air volume, thereby drawing air from the lower air volume into the channel.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heatable kitchen devices, Mothrath teaches wherein the upper air volume (annotated in fig. 1 above) is located in the heating area (area where the item 9 is heated, fig. 1) and the inner wall (wall 6, fig. 1) has a second opening above the opening (annotated in fig. 1 above), the second opening connecting the heating area to the channel (channel 5a, fig. 1) such that air from the channel is able to flow into the heating area and the upper air volume, thereby drawing air from the lower air volume into the channel (“The air current L flowing in flow channel 5a, 5b enters the toasting chamber 25 through an outlet opening 15 provided at the base of the partition wall 6,” column 2, lines 51-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Thie, in view of the teachings of Mothrath, by creating channels 5a and 5b for flowing an air current L into the sensing element and out through the toasting chamber 25, as taught by Mothrath, within the interior 22 that exhausts into the two toasting areas 25A and 25B, as taught by Thie, in order to create an air current that exits through the toasting areas, where the air current cools the sensing element to a temperature between 50-70°C, even though the toasting areas are at a temperature of about 900°C, for the advantage of inhibiting the conduction of heat, which can overheat the electronic sensing element (Mothrath, column 3, lines 50-63).
Claims 15, 17, and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thie et al (WO-2020000056-A1) in view of Tofaili et al. (WO-2018107206-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above and further in view of Amano et al. (GB-2179843-B).
Regarding claim 15, Thie teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the bracket further includes: a gasket between the seat and the sensor assembly.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heatable kitchen devices, Amano teaches wherein the bracket further includes: a gasket (case 29, fig. 3; the definition of a gasket is a “shaped piece or ring of rubber or other material sealing the junction between two surfaces in an engine or other device,” page 14; the case is made of plastic and “shields the diodes 36 and 39 from the ambient atmosphere,” page 14; the case 29 seals the diodes 36 and 39 from the outside environment and is construed as being a gasket) between the seat (plate 1, fig. 1) and the sensor assembly (35-40, fig. 3).
Amano, fig. 3
PNG
media_image10.png
304
586
media_image10.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 Thie, in view of the teachings of Amano, by using a case 29, as taught by Amano, between the sensor sub-assembly 234 and the sub-assembly bracket 232, as taught by Thie, in order to use an insulating case to surround the electronic components of the sensor to protect the sensor from dust in the ambient atmosphere, which improves the accuracy of detection for the sensor (Amano, page 14).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Thie in view of Tofaili and Amano as set forth above regarding claim 15 teaches the invention of claim 17. Specifically, Amano teaches wherein the gasket (case 29, fig. 3) includes an extended portion (cover 33, fig. 3) adapted to engage a hole (hole 38, fig. 3; the cover 33 is joined by a hinge and hinges around or entraps the backside of the construed sensor to secure the sensor, fig. 4; the definition of engage is: “to entangle or entrap in or as if in a snare or bog”) in the sensor assembly (35-40, fig. 3) to locate the sensor assembly relative to the gasket (fig. 4), and wherein the extended portion is located to reduce interference between an emitter and a receiver of the sensor assembly (the cover 33 surrounds the sensor 35-40, fig. 4; construed such that by virtue of surrounding the sensor, the cover prevents light from interfering with the sensor that is inside the case; “insulating case,” page 8).
Regarding claim 32, Thie does not explicitly disclose wherein the wall thickness is less than 1.5 mm.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heatable kitchen devices, Amano teaches wherein the wall thickness is less than 1.5 mm (“the wall thickness of the inner tube 27 is as "thin as possible, desirably, not more than 0.3mm,” page 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Thie, in view of the teachings of Amano, by using a wall thickness of 0.3 mm, as taught by Amano, for the walls between the sensors 52, as taught by Thie, in order to use a wall thickness that efficiently guides the infrared rays to the article being backed but that is not so thin that it is liable to be deformed (Amano, page 17).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Thie in view of Tofaili and Amano as set forth above regarding claim 15 teaches the invention of claim 33. Specifically, Amano teaches wherein the gasket (case 29, fig. 3) is integrated with the seat (“the outer tube 28 and the case 29 are fixed to the main plate 1 with the screws 30,” page 9; using screws is construed as being “integrated;” “integrated” is defined as “incorporated into a larger unit”).
Claims 18, 20, 22-24, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thie et al (WO-2020000056-A1) in view of Mothrath et al. (US-4913046-A) and Tofaili et al. (WO-2018107206-A1).
Regarding claim 18, Thie teaches a heatable kitchen device (“Toaster,” title) including:
a housing (housing 12, fig. 4) having an outer wall (wall 46, fig. 7) and an inner wall (wall 48, fig. 7; walls 48a and 48b, fig. 55A);
a heating area (cavities 25a and 25b, fig. 4) within the housing for receiving foodstuff to be heated (para 0159, page 17);
a heating element (heating elements 28, figs. 1 and 6) located between the heating area (cavities 25a and 25b, fig. 6) and the inner wall (inner wall 48, fig. 6);
a bracket (sensor sub-assembly 232, fig. 55A) mounted to the inner wall (inner wall 48a, fig. 55A) adjacent the heating area, the bracket being configured to receive a sensor assembly (sensor sub-assembly component 234, fig. 55) positioned for detecting a property of the foodstuff within the heating area (fig. 6; para 0164, page 20)
wherein the bracket includes a first rib (annotated in fig. 55A below) on at least one edge of the first aperture (bottom edge of the left “first aperture,” annotated in fig. 55A below) to reduce spillage of the test signal from the first aperture (the edge is construed as reducing spillage from the sensors 52 because the edge is part of an aperture that limits the amount of light that is directed from the aperture).
Thie does not explicitly disclose the housing further having a lower air volume between the inner wall and the outer wall below the sensor assembly and an upper air volume above the sensor assembly; wherein, the bracket has a channel connecting the lower air volume to the upper air volume, the channel being in thermal communication with the sensor assembly, wherein the sensor assembly includes: an emitter located adjacent the first aperture so as to emit a test signal to the foodstuff in the heating area; and a receiver located adjacent the second aperture so as to receive the test signal when reflected by the foodstuff in the heating area.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heatable kitchen devices, Mothrath teaches the housing (outer housing of fig. 1) further having a lower air volume (annotated in fig. 1 above) between the inner wall (wall 6, fig. 1) and the outer wall (outer casing wall 2, fig. 1) below the sensor assembly (sensing element 1, fig. 1); and an upper air volume (annotated in fig. 1 above; similar to how the “upper air volume” is described in in paragraph 0069 of the specification in the Instant Application as extending into the heating area, the upper air volume is construed as extending into the space of the heating area, as shown in annotated fig. 1 above) above the sensor assembly (the left end of the construed “upper air volume” is above sensing element 1, fig. 1), wherein the bracket has a channel (upward flow channel 5a, fig. 1) connecting the lower air volume to the upper air volume (as shown in fig. 1), the channel being in thermal communication with the sensor assembly (“path of the air current L affords the further advantage of also cooling the sensing element 1,” column 3, lines 60-61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Thie, in view of the teachings of Mothrath, by creating channels 5a and 5b for flowing an air current L, as taught by Mothrath, within the interior 22, as taught by Thie, in order to using an air current that cools the sensing element to a temperature between 50-70°C, even though the heating area is at a temperature of about 900°C, for the advantage of inhibiting the conduction of heat, which can overheat the electronic sensing element (Mothrath, column 3, lines 50-63).
Thie/Mothrath do not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor assembly includes: an emitter located adjacent the first aperture so as to emit a test signal to the foodstuff in the heating area; and a receiver located adjacent the second aperture so as to receive the test signal when reflected by the foodstuff in the heating area.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heatable kitchen devices, Tofaili teaches wherein the sensor assembly includes: an emitter (LED 43, fig. 13) located adjacent the first aperture (right aperture 47, fig. 13) so as to emit a test signal to the foodstuff in the heating area (“light emitted by the LED 43 impinges on the food product being heated,” page 12); and a receiver (sensor 41, fig. 13; “reflected beam then returning to the sensors 40, 41 and 44,” para 0079, page 12; because the beam returns to the sensor, sensor 41 is construed as a receiver) located adjacent the second aperture (second from the right aperture 47, fig. 13) so as to receive the test signal when reflected by the foodstuff in the heating area (para 0079, page 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Thie, in view of the teachings of Tofaili, by using LED sensors, as taught by Tofaili, as the sensors 52, as taught by Thie, in order to use light sensors that produce a signal that is indicative of a chromatic property of the toast, which can be used to determine the degree to which the bread is toasted (Tofaili, paras 0003 and 0065).
Regarding claim 20, Thie teaches wherein the inner wall has an opening (wall 48b has an opening, annotated fig. 55A above) allowing the sensor assembly to detect a property of the foodstuff (fig. 6; para 0164, page 20).
Thie does not explicitly disclose wherein the upper air volume is located in the heating area and the inner wall has a second opening above the opening, the second opening connecting the heating area to the channel such that air from the channel is able to flow into the heating area and the upper air volume, thereby drawing air from the lower air volume into the channel.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heatable kitchen devices, Mothrath teaches wherein the upper air volume (annotated in fig. 1 above) is located in the heating area (area where the item 9 is heated, fig. 1) and the inner wall (wall 6, fig. 1) has a second opening above the opening (annotated in fig. 1 above), the second opening connecting the heating area to the channel (channel 5a, fig. 1) such that air from the channel is able to flow into the heating area and the upper air volume, thereby drawing air from the lower air volume into the channel (“The air current L flowing in flow channel 5a, 5b enters the toasting chamber 25 through an outlet opening 15 provided at the base of the partition wall 6,” column 2, lines 51-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Thie, in view of the teachings of Mothrath, by creating channels 5a and 5b for flowing an air current L into the sensing element and out through the toasting chamber 25, as taught by Mothrath, within the interior 22 that exhausts into the two toasting areas 25A and 25B, as taught by Thie, in order to create an air current that exits through the toasting areas, where the air current cools the sensing element to a temperature between 50-70°C, even though the toasting areas are at a temperature of about 900°C, for the advantage of inhibiting the conduction of heat, which can overheat the electronic sensing element (Mothrath, column 3, lines 50-63).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Thie in view of Mothrath and Tofaili as set forth above regarding claim 20 teaches the invention of claim 22. Specifically, Mothrath teaches the upper air volume (annotated in fig. 1 above) is located between the inner wall (wall 6, fig. 1) and the outer wall (outer casing wall 2, fig. 1) and the channel (channel 5a, fig. 1) includes: a channel extension at an end (bottom end of channel 5a, fig. 1) of the channel extending vertically into the upper air volume (the construed channel extension in annotated in fig. 1 below).
Mothrath, fig. 1 (annotated)
PNG
media_image11.png
521
490
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Thie in view of Mothrath and Tofaili as set forth above regarding claim 20 teaches the invention of claim 23. Specifically, Mothrath teaches wherein the channel extension (the construed channel extension in annotated in fig. 1 below) has two or more side walls, a first side wall being provided by the bracket (the first side wall is annotated below; provided on the right side of the bracket that holds the sensing element 1, annotated fig. 1) and a second side wall being provided by the inner wall (the second side wall is annotated below; provided on the left side of the wall 6, which is construed as the claimed “inner wall,” annotated fig. 1), so that heat is transferred from the heating area through the inner wall to the channel extension (“The air current L flowing in flow channel 5a, 5b enters the toasting chamber 25 through an outlet opening 15 provided at the base of the partition wall 6,” column 2, lines 51-54; “The path of the air current L affords the further advantage of also cooling the sensing element 1,” column 3, lines 60-61; construed such that heat ls transferred from the sensor across the wall 6 to the outlet 15 in the chamber 25 as a result of the air current).
Regarding claim 24, Thie teaches wherein the bracket (sensor sub-assembly 232, fig. 55A) includes: a seat (left side assembly 232, annotated fig. 55) located opposite the inner wall (inner wall 48a, fig. 55A), the seat being configured for receiving the sensor assembly (sensor sub-assembly component 234, fig. 55);
a first aperture (annotated fig. 55A above) through the bracket to the seat (the apertures extend through the sub-assembly 232 to the left side to receive the sensors 52, figs. 55-55A), the first aperture having an area (cross sectional area of annotated “first aperture,” annotated fig. 55A above); and
a second aperture (annotated fig. 55A above) through the bracket to the seat (the apertures extend through the sub-assembly 232 to the left side to receive the sensors 52, figs. 55-55A), the second aperture having an area (cross sectional area of annotated “second aperture,” annotated fig. 55A above),
wherein the opening in the inner wall is larger than the combined areas of the apertures (wall 48b has an opening to accommodate the apertures, annotated fig. 55A) to allow the sensor assembly to detect a property of the foodstuff (fig. 6; para 0164, page 20).
Mothrath, fig. 1 (annotated)
PNG
media_image12.png
521
506
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 27, Thie teaches wherein the bracket further includes a second rib (please see annotated fig. 55A above) on at least one edge of the second aperture (top edge of the construed “second aperture,” annotated fig. 55A above) to reduce spillage of an unreflected test signal to the receiver (the top edge of the aperture is construed as limiting the amount of light that is directed through the aperture), and wherein the second rib includes a single rib extending along an edge of each of the two first apertures and the second aperture (the construed second rib is construed as being a single rib that extends along the top edge of the first apertures and second aperture, fig. 55A annotated) and the bracket includes two of the first apertures (annotated in fig. 55A above), the two first apertures being located on opposite sides of the second aperture (annotated in fig. 55A above; the construed first apertures are on either side of the second aperture).
Thie does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor assembly includes two emitters.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heatable kitchen devices, Tofaili teaches wherein the sensor assembly includes two emitters (two light emitting diodes 210, fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Thie, in view of the teachings of Tofaili, by using two outer LEDs and an inner detector, as taught by Tofaili, as the sensors 52, as taught by Thie, in order to detect the light from two different LEDs striking at two different locations on the bread, for the advantage of using chromatic measurements represent different locations, ensuring that the bread is evenly toasted at different locations (Tofaili, para 0062; fig. 4).
Regarding claim 28, Thie teaches wherein the bracket further includes a second rib (please see annotated fig. 55A above) on at least one edge of the second aperture (top edge of the construed “second aperture,” annotated fig. 55A above) to reduce spillage of an unreflected test signal to the receiver (the top edge of the aperture is construed as limiting the amount of light that is directed through the aperture), and the bracket includes two of the first apertures (annotated in fig. 55A above), the two first apertures being located on opposite sides of the second aperture (annotated in fig. 55A above; the construed first apertures are on either side of the second aperture), and wherein the two first apertures each have a vertical edge on a side opposite the second aperture (please see annotated fig. 55A above; the construed “vertical edges” are on the outer sides of the two first apertures), the vertical edge being unobstructed by the first rib and the second rib (the vertical edges are vertical and the first and second ribs are horizontal, annotated fig. 5A above; the vertical edges are construed as not obstructing the horizontal ribs).
Thie does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor assembly includes two emitters.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heatable kitchen devices, Tofaili teaches wherein the sensor assembly includes two emitters (two light emitting diodes 210, fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Thie, in view of the teachings of Tofaili, by using two outer LEDs and an inner detector, as taught by Tofaili, as the sensors 52, as taught by Thie, in order to detect the light from two different LEDs striking at two different locations on the bread, for the advantage of using chromatic measurements represent different locations, ensuring that the bread is evenly toasted at different locations (Tofaili, para 0062; fig. 4).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thie et al (WO-2020000056-A1) in view of Mothrath et al. (US-4913046-A) as applied to claims 18, 20, and 22-24 above and further in view of Amano et al. (GB-2179843-B).
Thie teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the bracket further includes a gasket between the seat and the sensor assembly, and the gasket is integrated with the seat, wherein the gasket includes an extended portion adapted to engage a hole in the sensor assembly to locate the sensor assembly relative to the gasket, and wherein the extended portion is located to reduce interference between an emitter and a receiver of the sensor assembly.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heatable kitchen devices, Amano teaches wherein the bracket further includes a gasket (case 29, fig. 3; the definition of a gasket is a “shaped piece or ring of rubber or other material sealing the junction between two surfaces in an engine or other device,” page 14; the case is made of plastic and “shields the diodes 36 and 39 from the ambient atmosphere,” page 14; the case 29 seals the diodes 36 and 39 from the outside environment and is construed as being a gasket) between the seat (plate 1, fig. 1) and the sensor assembly (35-40, fig. 3), and the gasket is integrated with the seat (“the outer tube 28 and the case 29 are fixed to the main plate 1 with the screws 30.,” page 9; using screws is construed as being “integrated;” “integrated” is defined as “incorporated into a larger unit”), wherein the gasket (case 29, fig. 3) includes an extended portion (cover 33, fig. 3) adapted to engage a hole (hole 38, fig. 3; the cover 33 is joined by a hinge and hinges around or entraps the backside of the construed sensor to secure the sensor, fig. 4; the definition of engage is: “to entangle or entrap in or as if in a snare or bog”) in the sensor assembly (35-40, fig. 3) to locate the sensor assembly relative to the gasket (fig. 4), and wherein the extended portion is located to reduce interference between an emitter and a receiver of the sensor assembly (the cover 33 surrounds the sensor 35-40, fig. 4; construed such that by virtue of surrounding the sensor, the cover prevents light from interfering with the sensor that is inside the case; “insulating case,” page 8).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 9 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Objections to the Drawings
The previous fig. 1 shows the heating area 120 and the housing 110 as pointing to the same structure:
Previous fig. 1
PNG
media_image13.png
718
1045
media_image13.png
Greyscale
As a result, a Drawing objection was provided in the Office action filed 17 February 2026. Fig. 1 was amended in the Drawing submission filed 9 June 2026. However, it appears that the numeral 110 (should be the housing) is pointing toward the heating area and that the numeral 120 (should be the heating area) is pointed toward the housing:
Amended fig. 1
PNG
media_image14.png
652
1045
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Recommend swapping these numerals so that the numerals point to the correct features.
Response to § 112 Rejection of Claims 1-2, 4-7, 11, 13-15, 17, 23-25, 27-28, and 31
In the previous Office action, a 35 USC 112b rejection was provided for claims 1 and 23 (this was a mistake—it should have been claim 24) for the limitation “a seat located opposite the inner wall.” As explained in the rejection, it is not clear what the seat is opposite from, relative to the inner wall. Obviously, a wall has two sides. It is not clear which side is considered to be the “opposite” side in this limitation from claims 1 and 24.
Page 10 of the arguments suggests this limitation has “been amended in a manner that is believed to obviate the rejection of the claims.” However, the claims do not show any amendments to this limitation. As a result, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection is maintained for claims 1 and 24.
Response to §102 Rejection of Claims 1-2
Page 10 of the arguments states that the “examiner concedes that Thie [WO2020000056A1] fails to disclose” the following limitations:
“wherein the sensor assembly includes: an emitter located adjacent the first aperture so as to emit a test signal to the foodstuff in the heating area; and a receiver located adjacent the second aperture so as to receive the test signal when reflected by the foodstuff in the heating area, wherein the bracket includes a first rib on at least one edge of the first aperture to reduce spillage of the test signal from the first aperture.”
The examiner disagrees with this statement. Instead, the examiner stated on page 16 of the Office action filed 17 February 2026 that Thie does not explicitly disclose the following limitations:
“wherein the sensor assembly includes: an emitter located adjacent the first aperture so as to emit a test signal to the foodstuff in the heating area; and a receiver located adjacent the second aperture so as to receive the test signal when reflected by the foodstuff in the heating area.“
In general, the arguments do not acknowledge or consider the evidence that was provided in the mappings from the rejections in the Office action filed 17 February 2026. Additionally, the arguments do not reference the Applicant’s Specification and Drawings to explain how the disputed features from the prior art are different from the features in the Applicant’s disclosure.
Page 11 of the arguments asserts that Thie does not teach the claimed bracket, the inner wall, the apertures, the seat, or mounting the sensor assembly to the bracket. The below annotations show how Thie teaches these features.
Thie, fig. 55A (annotated)
PNG
media_image15.png
732
1044
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Below is fig. 5 from the Instant Application. The disputed features are annotated in the drawing.
Fig. 5 of Instant Application (annotated)
PNG
media_image16.png
862
922
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Respectfully submit these disputed features are almost identical.
Page 11 of the arguments states that Thie does not disclose that the openings 50 in the inner wall 48b are larger than the combined area of the apertures in the bracket. The examiner disagrees. Respectfully submit that fig. 6 of Thie shows that the openings 50 are larger than the apertures for the sensors 52:
PNG
media_image17.png
531
1077
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Pages 11-12 of the arguments state that Thie does not teach an emitter/receiver pair for the sensor 52. The examiner agrees with this statement. Although a sensor 52 is taught, Thie does not disclose that there is an emitter or a receiver in the sensor 52. However, the rejection relies on Tofaili (WO2018107206A1) for teaching an emitter and a receiver and not on Thie.
Page 12 of the arguments states that Thie does not teach a “first rib.” The examiner disagrees with this statement. The following annotated drawing was provided on page 16 of the Office action filed 17 February 2026:
PNG
media_image3.png
778
691
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Applicant discloses a similar first rib 180 in fig. 18 of the Drawings from the Instant Application:
PNG
media_image18.png
464
726
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Page 12 of the arguments refers to a “specific technique” that achieves a “technical effect” of reflecting light off of bread. However, respectfully submit that this “specific technique” is not included within the claims. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Presupposing that this technique was added within the scope of the claims, the examiner is not sure how the technique could be added (the claims are directed to an apparatus and not a method). Additionally, the examiner notes that Tofaili appears to teach this “specific technique” in paragraph 0065, which the Applicant acknowledges as being taught by Tofaili on pages 12-13 of the arguments. As a result, respectfully submit that this “specific technique” of reflecting light off of bread is already known in the art.
Page 13 of the arguments states that “there is no teaching in Tofaili of a bracket inside, mounted to an inner wall, having two separate apertures (emitter vs receiver) and a rib to reduce signal leakage, etc.” However, respectfully submit that the rejection relies on Thie (primary reference) for these teachings and not on Tofaili (modifying reference).
Pages 13-14 of the arguments state that because Thie and Tofaili teach alternative designs for toasters and are focused on different problems, then one of ordinary skill in the art would not be inclined to modify Thie based on Tofaili’s teachings because modifying Thie in view of Tofaili “would change the basic principle operation of Thie as well as render Thie unsuitable for its intended purpose.” These pages argue that to combine these two inventions, a “skilled person would need to introduce entirely new mechanical structures (bracket, seat, dual apertures) that are not or suggested in Tofaili.”
The examiner did not find this argument persuasive because the proposed modification to Thie was to use “LED sensors, as taught by Tofaili, as the sensors 52, as taught by Thie” (page 17 of the Office action filed 17 February 2026). The examiner respectfully submits that using the sensors taught by Tofaili as the sensors 52 taught by Thie would be a straight-forward modification for one of ordinary skill that could be done without needing any new “mechanical structure” and which would not “change the basic principle operation of Thie” or “render Thie unsuitable for its intended purpose.” The modification that is proposed in the rejection is shown in the following drawings (referencing fig. 13 of Tofaili and fig. 55 of Thie):
PNG
media_image19.png
841
1022
media_image19.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
858
694
media_image20.png
Greyscale
All that is needed is a replacement of sensors. The rejection does not require or rely upon combability between the toaster architectures of Thie and Tofaili.
Page 14 of the arguments states that because the Applicant is focused on the problem of preventing “leakage via ribs at apertures,” whereas Tofaili is focused on the problem of “mitigating thermal effects and not on optimizing optical beam paths or reducing signal leakage,” then “one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found motivation from Tofaili.” The Applicant concludes that neither of the prior-art references provide at to any arrangements to solve the aforementioned problems associated with sensor mounting and sensor performance.”
However, examiners are directed not to focus “only to the problem the patentee was trying to solve” (MPEP 2141). In other words, examiners are not limited to only those references that provide solutions, which are specific to the problem that the Applicant is attempting to solve in their invention. The examiner further submits that the sensor sub-assembly bracket 232 that is taught by Thie would appear to solve this problem. As shown in fig. 55A of Thie, the bracket 232 has apertures. Fig. 6 of Thie shows these apertures for the sensors 52, which would prevent leakage from the sensors. The Applicant shows these same apertures in fig. 13 of the Instant Application. Therefore, it is unclear how the apertures that are taught by Thie are any different than the apertures that are disclosed in the Instant Application. If the Applicant’s apertures are able to “reduce signal leakage,” then respectfully submit that Thie’s apertures should also be able to “reduce signal leakage.”
Response to §103 Rejection of Claims 4, 15, and 17/ Response to §103 Rejection of Claims 5, 11, and 13-14/ Response to §103 Rejection of Claims 6-7
These arguments on pages 14-16 are conclusory and do not cite any evidence to support the assertions that the prior-art references do not teach claims 4-7, 11,13-15, and 17.
Response to §103 Rejection of Claims 18, 20, and 22-24
Regarding claim 18, the proposed modification was to “create channels 5a and 5b for flowing an air current L, as taught by Mothrath [US4913046], within the interior 22, as taught by Thie.” Page 17 of the arguments states that the “examiner has applied an overly broad reading of Mothrath” because “the sensing element 1 is located in the channel 5a, not at a position intermediate between a lower and an upper volume, and the channel 5a/5b is not part of any bracket holding a sensor assembly.”
The examiner did not find this argument persuasive because in the rejection, an annotated drawing of fig. 1 from Mothrath was provided, which shows an “Upper air volume” that is above the sensing element 1 and a “Lower air volume” that is below the sensing element. The Applicant provides a copy of this annotated drawing on page 17 of the arguments.
Additionally, although the Applicant argues that the claimed “channel” must be part of the bracket, the actual limitation from claim 18 is: “the bracket has a channel.” When the phrase “having” is used, the Specification must be considered (MPEP 2111.03.IV). The Specification discloses in fig. 17 a channel 172 that extends to an extension 192 that is above the bracket. Thus, in view of the Specification, the limitation “the bracket has a channel” does not mean that the channel must be included within the bracket.
Page 17 of the arguments states that because Mothrath teaches a passive sensor (that just receives a signal) and because Thie teaches an active optical signal (that transmits and receives a signal), then one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine Mothrath with Thie. The implication to this argument is that the examiner should be restricted to only those references that include sensors, which employ an active optical signal.
The examiner disagrees with this argument. The examiner determined that the field of endeavor is “heatable kitchen devices.” The examiner made this determination based on the Applicant’s Specification. Mothrath teaches a toaster, which is a heatable kitchen device. Thus, Mothrath qualifies as analogous art, which the examiner can use to determine whether adding “channels” to a toaster is an obvious modification for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Page 18 of the arguments states that because “Thie does not identify overheating of its sensor assembly as a problem to be solved,” then there is no “rational basis…to include Mothrath’s specific wall-cooling channel architecture.” Respectfully submit that the examiner and the Applicant have a different understanding of the examination process for determining obviousness. Based on the Applicant’s rationale, the examiner should first consider the differences between the claims and the prior-art reference. After this first step, the examiner should then do a second step to consider if this prior-art reference discusses any problems regarding these differences, e.g., overheating of a sensor. If this reference makes no mention of any problems regarding the differences, then the examiner is not permitted to consider any other references.
The examiner agrees that the first step is a requirement but disagrees that the second step is a requirement. The four steps that the examiner uses in determining obviousness were provided on page 10 of the Office action filed 17 February 2026. These steps do not include an additional step between step 2 and step 3, where obviousness determinations are restricted to only those problems that are discussed in the primary reference. The examiner further submits that narrowly restricting obviousness determinations to specific problems was disallowed in the KSR decision, which is explained MPEP 2141.
In response to applicant's argument that the incorporation of the channels 5a and 5b taught by Mothrath within the interior 22 taught by Thie, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The examiner further submits that based on Mothrath, including air channels within a toaster does not constitute an architecture “redesign,” and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider channels to be a “complex architecture” (Mothrath does not suggest that channels should be considered complex architecture). The argument appears to be based on the Applicant’s opinion and is not supported by any evidence.
Response to §103 Rejection of Claims 25 and 27-28/ Response to §103 Rejection of Claim 31
These arguments on pages 19-20 are conclusory and do not cite any evidence to support the assertions that the prior-art references do not teach claims 25, 27-28, and 31.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bassill et al. (US-20190357319-A1) teach a gasket for a sensor.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 7/17/2026
Prosecution Insights