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 .
Specification
The interlineations or cancellations made in the specification or amendments to the claims could lead to confusion and mistake during the issue and printing processes. Accordingly, the portion of the specification or claims as identified below is required to be rewritten before passing the case to issue. See 37 CFR 1.125 and MPEP § 608.01(q).
The disclosure is further objected to because the technical features of the invention should be clearly described and should not be referred to the claim, therefore any description referred to the claim such as “the temperature controller of claim 9” or others as noted on paragraph [0026] of the specification should be delete.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a measuring device” in claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 13, 16, and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Paragraph [0005] discloses in this case, the conventional temperature controller connects the temperature sensor to a measuring device to check whether the temperature sensor outputs a normal temperature value, and then performs a comparative measurement to measure the measured value of the temperature sensor.
Paragraph [0013] discloses the inventive concept provides a temperature controller. The temperature controller includes a temperature sensor unit installed within a semiconductor manufacturing facility and configured to detect a temperature value; a signal control unit configured to be electrically connected to the temperature sensor unit and to input the temperature value; and a measuring device to input the temperature value to measure if electrically connected with the temperature sensor unit, and wherein the signal control unit electrically connects the temperature sensor unit and the measuring device while inner switches are turned on, and the temperature value detected by the temperature sensor unit is transmitted to the measuring device.
Paragraph [0066] discloses the measuring device 90 is a device which measures the temperature value detected by the temperature sensor unit 10 and displays the temperature measurement value to be shown to the measuring operator. Such a measuring device 90 is used by being electrically connected to the branch connector 30 if the temperature sensor unit 10 wants to detect the measured analog temperature value.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 20, a “if” renders the claims indefinite for not providing positive limitation because it is unclear whether the limitations following the word are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the converter unit" at line 4 in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The dependent claims are also rejected for their inherited deficiencies on rejected independent claims 1, 9, and 20.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugishita et al. (US 20090095422) in view of Suzuki (US 5,228,114).
Regarding claim 1, Sugishita discloses a temperature controller 1204, 370, 420 (fig. 1, i.e. a temperature control unit/device) comprising:
a temperature sensor unit (1060, 372, i.e. called a temperature detecting/measuring unit/device) installed within a semiconductor manufacturing facility (1010, i.e. semiconductor manufacturing apparatus and/or a processing chamber) and configured to detect a temperature value (abstract; ¶ 0197-0199, 0211, 0215, 0353-0357);
a signal control unit (1200, i.e. a control unit) configured to be electrically connected to the temperature sensor unit (1060, 372) and to input the temperature value (¶ 0015, 0017, , 0142); and
a measuring device (1230, i.e. a temperature calculating unit) to input the temperature value to measure if electrically connected with the temperature sensor unit (1060, 372) (¶ 0017, 0019, 0096, 0142), and
the temperature value detected by the temperature sensor unit (1060, 372, i.e. called a temperature detecting/measuring unit/device) is transmitted to the measuring device (1230, i.e. a temperature calculating unit).
Sugishita discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for wherein the signal control unit electrically connects the temperature sensor unit and the measuring device while inner switches are turned on.
However, Suzuki teaches wherein the signal control unit (13a, 13b, 13c, i.e. analog multiplexers) electrically connects the temperature sensor unit (6a, 6b, 7, i.e. thermocouples) and the measuring device (20, i.e. a temperature measuring circuit) while inner switches (21, 22) are turned on (col. 2, lines 47-64; col. 3, lines 21-33; col. 6, lines 53- col. 7, lines 45).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of temperature measurement/detection and control. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sugishita and Suzuki before him or her, to include such temperature measurement and control arrangement of Suzuki because it is automatically switched to a corresponding external reserve thermocouple by the CPU so that temperature control is performed based on a measured temperature in accordance with a detection signal from the external reserve thermocouple. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a new and improved heat-treating apparatus in which even when a temperature detector such as a thermocouple is damaged, a normal operation can be continuously performed without causing an abnormality in temperature measurement and
control. As a result, an appropriate heat treatment of an object to be treated is guaranteed, and an economical loss is prevented (col. 3, lines 4-20).
With respect to claim 2, Sugishita in view of Suzuki discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Sugishita further discloses wherein the temperature sensor unit (1060, 372, i.e. called a temperature detecting/measuring unit/device) is a thermocouple temperature sensor (1062, 1064, 1066) (¶ 0059).
With respect to claims 3 and 11, Sugishita in view of Suzuki discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Suzuki further discloses a converter unit (24, i.e. an A/D converter) configured to be electrically connected to the signal control unit (13a, 13b, 13c, i.e. analog multiplexers) and to digitally convert the temperature value (col. 2, lines 10-17; col. 4, lines 19-42); and a temperature control unit (abstract, i.e. a controller) configured to be electrically connected to the converter unit (24) and to generate a control driving with respect to a temperature within the semiconductor manufacturing facility by being input with a digitally converted temperature value (col. 6, lines 53- col. 7, lines 45).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sugishita and Suzuki before him or her, to include such a converter configuration of Suzuki because it is automatically switched to a corresponding external reserve thermocouple by the CPU so that temperature control is performed based on a measured temperature in accordance with a detection signal from the external reserve thermocouple. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a new and improved heat-treating apparatus in which even when a temperature detector such as a thermocouple is damaged, a normal operation can be continuously performed without causing an abnormality in temperature measurement and
control. As a result, an appropriate heat treatment of an object to be treated is guaranteed, and an economical loss is prevented (col. 3, lines 4-20).
With respect to claims 4 and 12, Sugishita in view of Suzuki discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Sugishita further discloses an input connector (¶ 0142) providing an electrically combined region between the temperature sensor unit (1060, 372, i.e. called a temperature detecting/measuring unit/device) and the signal control unit (1200, i.e. a control unit).
With respect to claim 5, Sugishita in view of Suzuki discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Sugishita further discloses wherein the input connecter (¶ 0142) comprises: an input side connector body which combines with a periphery of the semiconductor manufacturing facility (1010, i.e. semiconductor manufacturing apparatus and/or a processing chamber); and an input side coupling terminal unit which is screwed to the input side connector body to electrically and mechanically connect the signal control unit (1200, i.e. a control unit) and an output terminal of the temperature sensor unit (1060, 372, i.e. called a temperature detecting/measuring unit/device).
With respect to claims 6 and 13, Sugishita in view of Suzuki discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Suzuki further discloses a branch connecter (11a, 11b, 11c) providing an electrically combined region between the signal control unit (13a, 13b, 13c, i.e. analog multiplexers) and the measuring device (20, i.e. temperature measuring circuit).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sugishita and Suzuki before him or her, to include such connector arrangements of Suzuki because it is automatically switched to a corresponding external reserve thermocouple by the CPU so that temperature control is performed based on a measured temperature in accordance with a detection signal from the external reserve thermocouple. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a new and improved heat-treating apparatus in which even when a temperature detector such as a thermocouple is damaged, a normal operation can be continuously performed without causing an abnormality in temperature measurement
and control. As a result, an appropriate heat treatment of an object to be treated is guaranteed, and an economical loss is prevented (col. 3, lines 4-20).
With respect to claim 7, Sugishita in view of Suzuki discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Suzuki further discloses wherein the branch connecter (11a, 11b, 11c) comprises: a branch side connector body (see figure 1) which combines with a periphery of the semiconductor manufacturing facility; and a branch input side coupling terminal unit which is screwed to the branch side connector body to electrically and mechanically connect the measuring device (20, i.e. temperature measuring circuit) and an input terminal of the signal control unit (13a, 13b, 13c, i.e. analog multiplexers) (col. 10, lines 37-col. 11, line 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sugishita and Suzuki before him or her, to include such connector arrangements of Suzuki because it is automatically switched to a corresponding external reserve thermocouple by the CPU so that temperature control is performed based on a measured temperature in accordance with a detection signal from the external reserve thermocouple. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a new and improved heat-treating apparatus in which even when a temperature detector such as a thermocouple is damaged, a normal operation can be continuously performed without causing an abnormality in temperature measurement
and control. As a result, an appropriate heat treatment of an object to be treated is guaranteed, and an economical loss is prevented (col. 3, lines 4-20).
With respect to claims 8 and 19, Sugishita in view of Suzuki discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Suzuki further discloses wherein the temperature control unit (abstract, i.e. a controller) is electrically connected to a heating apparatus (1) used at the converter unit (24) and the semiconductor manufacturing facility, is input with the temperature value measured by the temperature sensor unit (6a, 6b, 7, i.e. thermocouples) from the converter unit (24), and controls a temperature of the heating apparatus (1) so the measured temperature value follows a set temperature value (col. 8, lines 25-34; col. 9, lines 48-57).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sugishita and Suzuki before him or her, to include such temperature measurement and control arrangement of Suzuki because it is automatically switched to a corresponding external reserve thermocouple by the CPU so that temperature control is performed based on a measured temperature in accordance with a detection signal from the external reserve thermocouple. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a new and improved heat-treating apparatus in which even when a temperature detector such as a thermocouple is damaged, a normal operation can be continuously performed without causing an abnormality in temperature measurement and control. As a result, an appropriate heat treatment of an object to be treated is guaranteed, and an economical loss is prevented (col. 3, lines 4-20).
With respect to claim 9, Sugishita in view of Suzuki discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1 (same features) including of which Suzuki further discloses while the inner switches (21, 22) connected to the signal control unit (13a, 13b, 13c, i.e. analog multiplexers) among the inner switches are turned off (col. 2, lines 47-64; col. 3, lines 21-33; col. 6, lines 53- col. 7, lines 45).
With respect to claim 14, Sugishita in view of Suzuki discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Suzuki further discloses a signal operation unit (30, i.e. a switching signal generator) configured to electrically connect to the signal control unit (13a, 13b, 13c, i.e. analog multiplexers) and to selectively maintain the inner switches (21, 22) of the signal control unit (13a, 13b, 13c, i.e. analog multiplexers) in a turn-on state or a turn-off state by inputting a switching command to the signal control unit (13a, 13b, 13c, i.e. analog multiplexers).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sugishita and Suzuki before him or her, to include such signal operations of Suzuki because it is automatically switched to a corresponding external reserve thermocouple by the CPU so that temperature control is performed based on a measured temperature in accordance with a detection signal from the external reserve thermocouple. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a new and improved heat-treating apparatus in which even when a temperature detector such as a thermocouple is damaged, a normal operation can be continuously performed without causing an abnormality in temperature measurement and control. As a result, an appropriate heat treatment of an object to be treated is guaranteed, and an economical loss is prevented (col. 3, lines 4-20).
With respect to claim 15, Sugishita in view of Suzuki discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Suzuki further discloses wherein the signal control unit is configured as an analog multiplexer (13a, 13b, 13c, i.e. analog multiplexers) (col. 6, lines 39-52).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sugishita and Suzuki before him or her, to include such signal control arrangement/configuration of Suzuki because it is automatically switched to a corresponding external reserve thermocouple by the CPU so that temperature control is performed based on a measured temperature in accordance with a detection signal from the external reserve thermocouple. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a new and improved heat-treating apparatus in which even when a temperature detector such as a thermocouple is damaged, a normal operation can be continuously performed without causing an abnormality in temperature measurement and control. As a result, an appropriate heat treatment of an object to be treated is guaranteed, and an economical loss is prevented (col. 3, lines 4-20).
With respect to claim 16, Sugishita in view of Suzuki discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Suzuki further discloses wherein the signal control unit (13a, 13b, 13c, i.e. analog multiplexers) turns-off switches (21, 22) connected to the temperature sensor unit (6a, 6b, 7, i.e. thermocouples) among inner switches (21, 22) while the measuring device is connected, so a temperature value of the temperature sensor unit (6a, 6b, 7, i.e. thermocouples) is not transmitted to the converter unit (24) (col. 8, lines 25-34; col. 9, lines 48-57).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sugishita and Suzuki before him or her, to include such temperature measurement and control arrangement of Suzuki because it is automatically switched to a corresponding external reserve thermocouple by the CPU so that temperature control is performed based on a measured temperature in accordance with a detection signal from the external reserve thermocouple. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a new and improved heat-treating apparatus in which even when a temperature detector such as a thermocouple is damaged, a normal operation can be continuously performed without causing an abnormality in temperature measurement and control. As a result, an appropriate heat treatment of an object to be treated is guaranteed, and an economical loss is prevented (col. 3, lines 4-20).
With respect to claim 17, Sugishita in view of Suzuki discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Suzuki further discloses a buffer unit (25, 26, i.e. a read only memory (ROM) 25, a random access memory (RAM)) configured to be electrically connected between the converter unit (24) and the temperature control unit (6a, 6b, 7, i.e. thermocouples), to store the temperature value output from the converter unit (24), and to continuously transmit a stored temperature value to the temperature control unit (6a, 6b, 7, i.e. thermocouples) (col. 6, lines 53- col. 7, lines 20).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sugishita and Suzuki before him or her, to include such signal control arrangement/configuration of Suzuki because it is automatically switched to a corresponding external reserve thermocouple by the CPU so that temperature control is performed based on a measured temperature in accordance with a detection signal from the external reserve thermocouple. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a new and improved heat-treating apparatus in which even when a temperature detector such as a thermocouple is damaged, a normal operation can be continuously performed without causing an abnormality in temperature measurement and control. As a result, an appropriate heat treatment of an object to be treated is guaranteed, and an economical loss is prevented (col. 3, lines 4-20).
With respect to claim 18, Sugishita in view of Suzuki discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Suzuki further discloses a sensor power source unit (see figure 3, i.e. an AC power source) configured to electrically connect to a portion of the inner switches (21, 22) of the signal control unit (13a, 13b, 13c, i.e. analog multiplexers) to supply a power to the temperature sensor unit (6a, 6b, 7, i.e. thermocouples).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sugishita and Suzuki before him or her, to include such a power source of Suzuki because in this manner, in the heat-treating apparatus of the second embodiment, the detection signals from the thermocouples are amplified and digitized in accordance with the sample period determined to be in synchronism with the power source frequency. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a new and improved heat-treating apparatus in which even when a temperature detector such as a thermocouple is damaged, a normal operation can be continuously performed without causing an abnormality in temperature measurement and
control. As a result, an appropriate heat treatment of an object to be treated is guaranteed, and an economical loss is prevented (col. 3, lines 4-20).
Claim(s) 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugishita et al. (US 20090095422) in view of Suzuki (US 5,228,114) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Coursey et al. (US 20100285571).
Regarding claim 10, Sugishita et al. in view of Suzuki discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 9, except for wherein the temperature sensor unit is a resistance temperature detector (RTD) temperature sensor.
However, Coursey teaches wherein the temperature sensor unit is a resistance temperature detector (RTD) temperature sensor (305, 505a, 505b) (¶ 0017, 0067-0069).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a temperature measurement. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sugishita et al. in view of Suzuki and Coursey before him or her, to include such temperature detector of Coursey because the plurality of RTDs may be configured to measure the temperatures of different environments or may be selected to possess different temperature-dependent resistances appropriate for measuring different ranges of temperatures. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides accurately control the sample temperatures at the different phases to a specified degree (¶ 0006).
With respect to claim 20, Sugishita et al. in view of Suzuki and Coursey discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above in claims 1, 2, and 9 (same features) of which Coursey further discloses the temperature sensor unit is configured as a resistance temperature detector temperature sensor (305, 505a, 505b) (¶ 0017, 0067-0069).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sugishita et al. in view of Suzuki and Coursey before him or her, to include such temperature detector of Coursey because the plurality of RTDs may be configured to measure the temperatures of different environments or may be selected to possess different temperature-dependent resistances appropriate for measuring different ranges of temperatures. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides accurately control the sample temperatures at the different phases to a specified degree (¶ 0006).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamashita (US 20220042855). Park (US 20130027015). Tomita et al. (US 20080142500). And Tamano (US 20200033197).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KET D DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KET D DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761