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 .
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 35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 35 is rejected since the phrase “the lid” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 37 is rejected since the phrase “the position detector” lacks antecedent basis.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 18, 21-29, 31-32 and 35-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strolenberg (20160331004).
Strolenberg teaches with respect to claim 18, an apparatus for thawing foodstuff (par. 0001) comprising a thawing chamber for accommodating the foodstuff (par. 0033, fig. 1), the thawing chamber is arranged movably such that the thawing chamber is movable during a thawing process (par. 0031), the thawing chamber comprises a sensor (par. 0033 ref. 8) for sensing a level of frozenness of the foodstuff in the thawing chamber (par. 0036 progress of thawing; par. 0036 relative changing of thawing to cooling, i.e. desired level), the sensor is arranged at a first fixed location inside of the thawing chamber (par. 0033), the sensor comprising a microwave transmitter (par. 0008; par. 0033 last 8 lines microwave generator) and a microwave receiver (par. 0008; par. 0033 last 8 lines antenna) that is spaced from the microwave transmitter (par. 0008 par. 0034 spaced relative emitted vs received, spaced relative different entities), the microwave receiver configured to receive a transmission signal transmitted by the microwave transmitter (par. 0008 par. 0034), the microwave transmitter and the microwave receiver are arranged inside the thawing chamber (par. 0033; fig. 1 ref. 8) such that the foodstuff is, at least temporarily, situated between the microwave transmitter and the microwave receiver during a thawing process carried out with the apparatus (par. 0008; par. 0034).
Though silent to a base, since the apparatus is inclined. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a base for notoriously known purpose of providing a support structure and more specifically in the instant case a base such that the thawing chamber is movable during a thawing process.
Strolenberg teaches the sensor fixed within the chamber for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose. Though teaching a preferable mounting for the sensor, importantly Strolenberg does not teach away from and more importantly the taught art recognized purpose of a same detection would be accomplished. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the same sensor fixed with respect to the vessel since such would be an obvious engineering choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve the same measurements.
In addition, Strolenberg further teaches a microwave generator which is fixed within the vessel such that the microwave generator rotates with the vessel (par. 0038). Though a different component Strolenberg recognizes a structure for affecting the food within the chamber being mounted within the chamber. Thus since there are only 2 possible solutions, i.e. fixed relative the vessel or fixed to the vessel for measurements within a same chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the same sensor fixed with respect to the vessel since such would be an obvious engineering choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve the same measurements and since such would be “Obvious to try”, i.e. choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant is using known components to obtain expected results. There is nothing patentable unless the applicant, by a proper showing, further establishes a coaction or cooperative which produces a new, unexpected, and useful function. Applicant's claims are drawn to a combination of known components which produces expected results.
"The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of... the explicit content of issued patents." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 550 U.S. 398, 419. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416., The question to be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
In addition, a conclusion of obviousness can be made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Such as in the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the same sensor fixed with respect to the vessel such that the sensor is movable together with the thawing chamber during the thawing process in the which the thawing chamber rotates relative the base since the same sensor and same rotating vessel, where the same sensor is movable with the vessel would not produce new or unexpected results.
With respect to Independent claim 29 a method for thawing foodstuff in a thawing apparatus (par. 0001) comprising a thawing chamber (par. 0033) for accommodating the foodstuff, the thawing chamber includes a sensor (par. 0033 ref. 8) for sensing a level of frozenness of the foodstuff accommodated in the thawing chamber (par. 0036 progress of thawing; par. 0036 relative changing of thawing to cooling, i.e. desired level), the sensor comprising a microwave transmitter (par. 0008; par. 0033 last 8 lines microwave generator) and a microwave receiver (par. 0008; par. 0033 last 8 lines antenna) that is spaced from the microwave transmitter (par. 0008 par. 0034 spaced relative emitted vs received, spaced relative different entities),, the method comprising:
Thawing (par. 0033) the foodstuff in the thawing chamber (par. 0033), wherein the foodstuff is, at least temporarily, situated between the microwave transmitter and the microwave receiver of the sensor (par. 0008; par. 0034), where during thawing, the method comprises rotating the thawing chamber (par. 0031), where the sensor is arranged at a fixed location inside the thawing chamber (par. 0033)
measuring a transmission signal transmitted by the microwave transmitter using the microwave receiver (par. 0008, 0034)
determining a level of frozenness based (par. 0036 progress of thawing; par. 0036 relative changing of thawing to cooling, i.e. desired level) on a transmission signal received by the microwave receiver (par. 0008; par. 0034; antennae) when the thawing chamber is in a position in which the foodstuff is situated between the microwave transmitter and the microwave receiver (par. 0008 emitted and reflected) wherein the thawing step is stopped when the detected level of frozenness reaches a predetermined level (par. 0036 relative changing of thawing to cooling, i.e. desired level; par. 0014 end).
Though silent to a base, since the apparatus is inclined. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a base for notoriously known purpose of providing a support structure and more specifically in the instant case such that the thawing chamber is movable during a thawing process.
Strolenberg teaches the sensor fixed within the chamber for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose. Though teaching a preferable mounting for the sensor, importantly Strolenberg does not teach away from and more importantly the taught art recognized purpose of a same detection would be accomplished. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the same sensor fixed with respect to the vessel since such would be an obvious engineering choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve the same measurements.
In addition, Strolenberg further teaches a microwave generator which is fixed within the vessel such that the microwave generator rotates with the vessel (par. 0038). Though a different component Strolenberg recognizes a structure for affecting the food within the chamber being mounted within the chamber. Thus since there are only 2 possible solutions, i.e. fixed relative the vessel or fixed to the vessel for measurements within a same chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the same sensor fixed with respect to the vessel since such would be an obvious engineering choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve the same measurements and since such would be “Obvious to try”, i.e. choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant is using known components to obtain expected results. There is nothing patentable unless the applicant, by a proper showing, further establishes a coaction or cooperative which produces a new, unexpected, and useful function. Applicant's claims are drawn to a combination of known components which produces expected results.
"The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of... the explicit content of issued patents." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 550 U.S. 398, 419. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416., The question to be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
In addition, a conclusion of obviousness can be made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Such as in the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the same sensor fixed with respect to the vessel such that the sensor is movable together with the thawing chamber during the thawing process in the which the thawing chamber rotates relative the base since the same sensor and same rotating vessel, where the same sensor is movable with the vessel would not produce new or unexpected results.
With respect to claim 21, Strolenberg teaches the thawing chamber is inclined relative to the horizontal (par. 0033). Thus since Strolenberg teaches incline angle can be varied (par. 0033). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a position detector in the apparatus for detecting a position of the thawing chamber with respect to the base thus achieving a desired and variable amount of incline relative the horizontal as desired by Strolenberg since the angle of inclination is product dependent thus achieving its same art recognized and applicants intended purpose of sensing a level of frozenness depending on the food product (par. 0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a position detector, such as a motion sensor, an angle encoder, or an angle sensor in the apparatus for detecting a position of the thawing chamber with respect to the base thus achieving a desired and variable amount of incline relative the horizontal as desired by Strolenberg since the angle of inclination is preferably altered based on the filling degree of the vessel and/or conditions under which thawing takes place as further taught (par. 0005)
In addition, since the position of the detected position is not limited and since the sensor for detecting the level of frozenness is taught to be at angle for achieving the emission and received and since the position does not affect the working of the apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach the apparatus is configured to sense the level of frozenness of the foodstuff depending on the position detected by the position detector thus achieving a same detected information which provides information of the progress of the thawing process and control of the heating such that the product is not overheated as taught (par. 0036).
Claim 22, wherein the apparatus or the sensor includes a processing unit (par. 0036; control unit) that is configured to analyze an amplitude of the transmission signal received by the microwave receiver (par. 0033 received, 0035 difference).
Claim 23, wherein the processing unit is configured to analyze a phase difference between a signal transmitted by the microwave transmitter and the transmission signal received by the microwave receiver (par. 0034-035 difference).
Claim 24, the sensor comprises an electrical energy storage (par. 0035 storage relative provided information to control unit, detection amount).
Claim 25, the thawing chamber comprises one or more mixing elements that are movably or rotatably arranged inside the thawing chamber (par. 0036 baffles paddles).
Claim 26, a steam generator is connected to the thawing chamber to feed steam into the thawing chamber (par. 0036 last 6 lines).
Claim 27, wherein a vacuum generator is connected to the thawing chamber to create a vacuum inside the thawing chamber (par. 0036 last 4 lines).
Claim 28, a controller is connected to the sensor via a communication link or a wireless communication link, the controller is configured to stop the thawing process depending on the level of frozenness detected by the sensor (par. 0036 relative changing from thawing to cooling; par. 0014 till the end).
With respect to claim 31, Strolenberg teaches the thawing chamber is inclined relative to the horizontal (par. 0033). Thus since Strolenberg teaches incline angle can be varied (par. 0033). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a position detector in the apparatus for detecting a position of the thawing chamber with respect to the base thus achieving a desired and variable amount of incline relative the horizontal as desired by Strolenberg since the angle of inclination is product dependent thus achieving its same art recognized and applicants intended purpose of sensing a level of frozenness depending on the food product (par. 0005).
In addition, since the position of the detected position is not limited and since the sensor for detecting the level of frozenness is taught to be at angle for achieving the emission and received and since the position does not affect the working of the apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach the apparatus is configured to sense the level of frozenness of the foodstuff depending on the position detected by the position detector thus achieving a same detected information which provides information of the progress of the thawing process and control of the heating such that the product is not overheated as taught (par. 0036).
With respect to claim 32, where movement is taken with respect to the incline angle which is set. The method comprises stopping movement (par. 0033 relative the incline angle to the horizontal) of the thawing chamber when the thawing chamber is in a position in which the foodstuff is situated between the microwave transmitter and the microwave receiver at least for a predetermined period.
Claim 35, wherein the sensor is fixed within the thawing chamber, at a region between a bottom of the thawing chamber and the lid (par. 0033).
Though silent to the sensor fixed to an inside wall of the thawing chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the same sensor fixed with respect to the inside wall of the vessel since such would be an obvious engineering choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve the same measurements and since such would be “Obvious to try”, i.e. choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant is using known components to obtain expected results. There is nothing patentable unless the applicant, by a proper showing, further establishes a coaction or cooperative which produces a new, unexpected, and useful function. Applicant's claims are drawn to a combination of known components which produces expected results. In light of the teachings and purpose taught where the sensor is fixed within the thawing chamber, at a region between a bottom of the thawing chamber and the lid (par. 0033).
Claim 36, the microwave receiver is configured to receive the transmission signal transmitted by the microwave transmitter for sensing the level of frozenness of the foodstuff in the thawing chamber (par. 0034) while the thawing chamber rotates relative to the base (par. 0031).
With respect to claim 37, since Strolenberg teaches incline angle can be varied (par. 0033). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a position detector, such as a motion sensor, an angle encoder, or an angle sensor in the apparatus for detecting a position of the thawing chamber with respect to the base thus achieving a desired and variable amount of incline relative the horizontal as desired by Strolenberg since the angle of inclination is product dependent thus achieving its same art recognized and applicants intended purpose of sensing a level of frozenness depending on the food product (par. 0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a position detector, such as a motion sensor, an angle encoder, or an angle sensor in the apparatus for detecting a position of the thawing chamber with respect to the base thus achieving a desired and variable amount of incline relative the horizontal as desired by Strolenberg since the angle of inclination is preferably altered based on the filling degree of the vessel and/or conditions under which thawing takes place as further taught (par. 0005)
Claim 38, Strolenberg teach the sensor transferring a signal (pr. 0033 last 5 lines), i.e. wireless. Strolenberg teaches energy supply to the vessel (par. 0033 last 4 lines). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide power to the sensor such as in the instant case by a battery and since Strolenber teaches the claimed known components to obtain expected results. There is nothing patentable of a battery unless the applicant, by a proper showing, further establishes a coaction or cooperative which produces a new, unexpected, and useful function. Applicant's claims are drawn to a combination of known components which produces expected results.
Claim 39, the thawing chamber is configured to (par. 0031 capable or both with and without rotation) temporarily stop rotating when the thawing chamber is in a position in which the foodstuff is situated between the microwave transmitter and the microwave receiver (par. 0008).
Claim 40, wherein the sensor is fixed within the thawing chamber, at a region between a bottom of the thawing chamber and the lid (par. 0033).
Though silent to the sensor fixed to an inside wall of the thawing chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the same sensor fixed with respect to the inside wall of the vessel since such would be an obvious engineering choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve the same measurements and since such would be “Obvious to try”, i.e. choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant is using known components to obtain expected results. There is nothing patentable unless the applicant, by a proper showing, further establishes a coaction or cooperative which produces a new, unexpected, and useful function. Applicant's claims are drawn to a combination of known components which produces expected results. In light of the teachings and purpose taught where the sensor is fixed within the thawing chamber, at a region between a bottom of the thawing chamber and the lid (par. 0033).
Claim 41, Strolenberg teaches the sensor fixed within the chamber for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose. Thus since there are only 2 possible solutions, i.e. fixed relative the vessel or fixed to the vessel for measurements within a same chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the same sensor fixed with respect to the vessel since such would be an obvious engineering choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve the same measurements and since such would be “Obvious to try”, i.e. choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant is using known components to obtain expected results. There is nothing patentable unless the applicant, by a proper showing, further establishes a coaction or cooperative which produces a new, unexpected, and useful function. Applicant's claims are drawn to a combination of known components which produces expected results.
"The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of... the explicit content of issued patents." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 550 U.S. 398, 419. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416., The question to be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
In addition, a conclusion of obviousness can be made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Such as in the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the same sensor fixed with respect to the vessel such that the sensor is movable together with the thawing chamber during the thawing process in the which the thawing chamber rotates relative the base since the same sensor and same rotating vessel, where the same sensor is movable with the vessel would not produce new or unexpected results.
Claim 42, Strolenberg teach the sensor transferring a signal (pr. 0033 last 5 lines), i.e. wireless. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide power to the sensor such as in the instant case by a battery so the sensor can operate without being connected to a power supply with wires and provide the taught signals to the control unit and since Strolenberg teaches the claimed known components to obtain expected results. There is nothing patentable of a battery unless the applicant, by a proper showing, further establishes a coaction or cooperative which produces a new, unexpected, and useful function. Applicant's claims are drawn to a combination of known components which produces expected results.
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicants urging Strolenberg teaches away from applicants claimed sensor location. Importantly, Strolenberg teach such as “preferably” which is not a teaching limiting the operation capability relative other obvious locations which achieve a same result.
In addition to being a preferable mounting, Strolenberg further teaches a microwave generator which is fixed within the vessel such that the microwave generator rotates with the vessel (par. 0038). Though a different component Strolenberg recognizes a structure for affecting the food within the chamber being mounted within the chamber. Thus since there are only 2 possible solutions, i.e. fixed relative the vessel or fixed to the vessel for measurements within a same chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the same sensor fixed with respect to the vessel since such would be an obvious engineering choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve the same measurements and since such would be “Obvious to try”, i.e. choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to applicants urging is silent to the food stuff between the transmitter and receiver. It is initially noted the claims are silent to structure of transmitter, food, receiver relative an axis. More specifically, the claims are silent to the transmitter positioned in front of a food and a receiver positioned behind the food “at least temporarily”. In the instant case the claims are limited by “between”. Strolenberg teaches emitting a signal from the transmitter and an antenna i.e. receiver, which detects an amount “that has been absorbed and/or that has been reflected” (par. 0008). Importantly the urged physical placement of Strolenberg is reliant on the foodstuff for providing the intent of determining progress by deriving properties of the food product as taught.
With respect to applicants urging Strolenberg describes a single sensing arrangement in which a microwave generator emits a signal and an antenna receives reflected energy. Importantly the claims are not limited but by the phrase “spaced”. In the instant case and as acknowledged by applicant, Strolenberg teaches 2 separate components, i.e. spaced, though of a single sensor minus any clear and convincing arguments distinct sensor components are not spatially separated.
With respect to applicants urging of the advantage of the sensor arrangement, as noted above the claims are not limited to the urged to the teachings of the specification and merely are limited by “between”.
With respect to claim 24, Strolenberg is taken with respect to an electrical energy storage, i.e providing power, energy, signals (par. 0033 PLC).
With respect to claim 29, applicants urgings are taken as above.
With respect to claim 21, importantly Strolenberg teaches motivation for providing different angles of inclination (par. 0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a position detector in the apparatus for detecting a position of the thawing chamber with respect to the base thus achieving a desired and variable amount of incline relative the horizontal as desired by Strolenberg since the angle of inclination is product dependent thus achieving its same art recognized and applicants intended purpose of sensing a level of frozenness depending on the food product (par. 0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a position detector, such as a motion sensor, an angle encoder, or an angle sensor in the apparatus for detecting a position of the thawing chamber with respect to the base thus achieving a desired and variable amount of incline relative the horizontal as desired by Strolenberg since the angle of inclination is preferably altered based on the filling degree of the vessel and/or conditions under which thawing takes place as further taught (par. 0005)
In addition, since the position of the detected position is not limited and since the sensor for detecting the level of frozenness is taught to be at angle for achieving the emission and received and since the position does not affect the working of the apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach the apparatus is configured to sense the level of frozenness of the foodstuff depending on the position detected by the position detector thus achieving a same detected information which provides information of the progress of the thawing process and control of the heating such that the product is not overheated as taught (par. 0036).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN N LEFF whose telephone number is (571)272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571)270-34753475. 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.
/STEVEN N LEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792