CTFR 18/091,480 CTFR 100170 DETAILED ACTION Response to Amendment The Amendment filed 02/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 and 10-18 remain pending in the application. Claim 9 has been canceled. New claims 11-18 have been added. Applicant's amendments to the drawings have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/21/2025. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/21/2025, with the exception of those included in this Office action. Specification 07-28 AIA The amendment filed 02/23/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The inclusion of “controller” in various instances throughout the instant specification. The instant specification recites “The control unit may sometimes be referred to hereinafter as a “controller” ([0007]). However, a “controller” was not present in the original disclosure. See 112(a) rejection herein. “at least one component holder for holding the component” ([0008]). The original disclosure recited a “retaining unit” which is not equivalent to the claimed “component holder”. See 112(a) rejection herein . Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Regarding the “steel component” of claims 1-8 and 10-18 , it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault , 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” In the present case, the claimed “system” is interpreted as an apparatus and the “steel component” is considered the article worked upon by the claimed inductive hardening system. Regarding the function of “holding the steel component” of claims 1, 10 and 11 , the term “holding the steel component” is interpreted as anything that can support, fasten, or maintain a component in a desired position. The limitation “adapted to” of claims 10-18 is interpreted in light of the specification. See MPEP 2111.04(I) and 112(b) rejection in this Office action. In this case, the instant specification does not recite the term “adapted to” nor does it provide further information as to its meaning. Consequently, the limitation is interpreted as a manner of operating a disclosed device. Neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault , 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). In this case, an apparatus of the prior art having a controller capable of controlling heat will be interpreted as reading on the instant “controller adapted to”. The limitation “controller configured to ” (emphasis added) of claims 1-5, 8, 10-15, and 18 is interpreted as a controller that can perform the recited function based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “configured”. See MPEP 2111.01. Regarding the “controller” limitation of claims 1-5, 8, 10-15, and 18 , the instant specification recites “The control unit may sometimes be referred to hereinafter as a “controller” ([0007])”. In light of the specification, a “control unit” of the prior art will be interpreted as synonymous with the claimed “controller”. Claim Objections 07-05-05 Applicant is advised that should claims 1-8 be found allowable, claims 10 and 11-18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-30-01 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. 07-31-01 Claims 1-8 and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1-5, 8, 10-15, and 18 now contain the limitation “controller”. Although the instant specification was amended to recite “The control unit may sometimes be referred to hereinafter as a “controller” ([0007]), a “controller” was not present in the original disclosure and the terms “control unit” and “controller” are not synonymous. The term “control unit” is defined by Britannica as “a subcomponent of a central processing unit (CPU)”, while a “controller” is a computer that has a CPU and is therefore broader than the term “control unit” (see “What is the definition of PLC?” of Unitronics as an example of a “controller” used in industrial settings). Claims 6, 16, and 17 do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also rejected. Claims 1, 10, and 11 now recite the limitation “component holder”. The instant specification was amended to recite “at least one component holder for holding the component” ([0008]). However, the original disclosure recited a “retaining unit” which is not equivalent to the claimed “component holder”. Claims 2-8 and 12-18 do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also rejected. Claims 1-5, 8, 10-15, and 18 now contain the limitation “controller configured to ” or “controller is configured to ” (emphasis added). Although the instant specification was amended to recite “The control unit may sometimes be referred to hereinafter as a “controller” ([0007]), a “controller configured to” was not present in the original disclosure and the terms “control unit” and “controller” are not synonymous. See 112(a) rejection above for “controller”. The original disclosure recites “a control unit configured to” throughout the claims and instant specification. Claims 6, 16, and 17 do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also rejected. Claims 10-15 and 18 now contain the limitation “adapted to”. The instant specification does not recite the limitation “adapted to” anywhere. The limitation “adapted to” is not present in the original disclosure either. There is insufficient support in the instant disclosure for “controller adapted to ” (emphasis added). Claims 16-17 do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also rejected. 07-34-01 Claims 10-18 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, 10, and 11 recite the limitations “to produce a first amount of heat per unit area in the steel component” and “to produce a first amount of heat per unit area in the steel component”. These limitations render the claim indefinite since the steel component is not part of the claimed system (see Claim Interpretation above). Since the component is not part of the claimed system, the area of the component is not part of the system either. It is further unclear what the claimed “first amount of heat per unit area” and “second amount of heat per unit area” has to be since the heat per unit area produced in a component will be necessarily be affected by the dimensions, type of material, thermal conductivity, and other properties of any given component. Claims 2-8 and 12-18 do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also indefinite. Regarding claim 3 , the limitation “an induction coil holder configured to hold the induction coil at a coupling distance from the component” renders the claim indefinite since the component is not part of the claimed system (see Claim Interpretation above) and consequently the component cannot be used to define a distance. Therefore, it is unclear what the claimed coupling distance encompasses. Claim 5 recites the limitation “the controller is configured to set the relative speed of the induction coil and the component to a first speed until the predetermined temperature is reached”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite since the component is not part of the claimed system (see Claim Interpretation above) and consequently the component cannot be used to define a relative speed. Therefore, it is unclear what the claimed relative speed encompasses. Claim 6 depends on claim 5 , does not resolve the aforementioned issues, and is thereby also indefinite. Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the predetermined temperature is an austenitization start temperature, an austenitization end temperature, or a temperature between the austenitization start temperature and the austenitization end temperature”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what the austenitization temperature is referring to. The Examiner notes that the component is the article worked upon (see Claim Interpretation section above) and therefore not part of the claimed system. If the austenitization temperature of claim 7 is referring to the temperature of the steel component, neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Claims 10-15 and 18 now contain the limitation “adapted to”. The term “adapted to” may raise a question as to whether the claim language is optional and depends on the specific facts of the case. See MPEP 2111.04(I). In this case, the instant specification does not recite the term “adapted to” nor does it provide further information as to its meaning. This limitation therefore renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear whether the limitations following the limitation “adapted to” are required or if the claimed “controller” should merely be capable of operating in the manner recited. See Claim Interpretation section herein. Claims 16-17 do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102008033735 A1 of Spintig (as cited in IDS mailed 12/30/2022, cited in prior Office action, and with reference to its English machine translation) in view of US 2012/0103974 A1 of Buschsieweke (as cited in IDS mailed 05/20/2026) . Regarding claims 1 and 8 , Spintig teaches a method is described for hardening at least one raceway of a bearing ring (Abstract, reads on claimed hardening a component since a bearing ring is a component). Spintig teaches hardening at least one raceway (2, 2a, Figs. 1-6) of a bearing ring (1, reads on the claimed component) for a large-diameter rolling bearing, comprising arrangement of at least two main inductors (3, 4, inductors read on the claimed inductor coil since “induction coils” are generally referred to as “inductors” as described in [0002]) in the region of a common starting zone of the raceway and heating the raceway by means of the main inductors (3, 4, heating by means of an inductor reads on the claimed induction coil configured to induce an electrical current in the component to heat the component since one of ordinary skill in the art understands inductors heat by inducing an electrical current) and optionally applying an additional auxiliary inductor (11, also reads on the claimed inductor coil) in the region of the end zone preheating the track (claim 1, Figs. 1-6). Regarding the steel component of claims 1 and 8 , the bearing ring of Spintig reads on the claimed steel component since one of ordinary skill in the art understands that bearing rings are typically made of steel and can be hardened with heating devices such as the one disclosed by Spintig. A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. See MPEP § 2164.01. Since Spintig teaches a hardening method and the corresponding apparatus to perform the method using inductors, as depicted in Figs. 1-6, Spintig teaches inductive hardening and therefore reads on the limitation “an inductive hardening system for hardening a component, the inductive hardening system comprising: an induction coil configured to induce an electrical current in the component to heat the component” of claim 1 . Spintig teaches a bearing ring to be hardened (1, Fig. 1) and that the bearing ring and/or the main inductors (3, 4, Fig. 1) can be set into a pendulum movement in the circumferential direction ([0017]). Since the bearing ring treated by the method of Spintig is held at least by the surface on which it rests, the apparatus of Spintig shown in Fig. 1 reads on claimed component holder. Additionally, or alternatively, since the inductors of Spintig move, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fasten the bearing ring to secure its position using clamps or a similar part since fastening a part is well-known in the art. Spintig therefore reads on the limitation a component holder for holding the component of claim 1 . Spintig teaches controlling, adjusting or changing selected properties or states of the inductors (3, 4 and/or 11) for the purpose of heating ([0022]). Spintig teaches adjusting the inductors to different frequencies and voltages to equalize heating of the bearing ring and avoid non-uniformities in the heating zones ([0028]-[0029], [0035]). Spintig teaches a control unit (26, Fig. 6) which is used to control input to the inverters (23a, 23b) via line (25a, 25b). As shown in Fig. 6, Spintig teaches the control unit is connected to the voltage sources for the voltages U1, U2 (Fig. 5) which each contain a rectifier (22) connected to the usual power grid (21), to which an inverter (23a, 23b) is connected, the outputs of which are connected to a primary coil of a transformer (24) and a secondary coil of the transformers is connected to the supply lines (18) ([0033]-[0036]). Spintig teaches the control signals from the control unit determines the phase position of the output voltage of the inverter ([0036]), which ultimately controls the states of the inductors, as seen in Fig. 6. Since Spintig teaches adjusting the frequency and voltage of the inductors and using a control unit to adjust these properties with the goal of avoiding non-uniformities in the heating zones, the method of Spintig produces a first amount of heat when using a first frequency or voltage and a second amount of heat when adjusting the input of the inductors to a second frequency or voltage. Spintig teaches the invention is not limited to the described embodiments, which can be modified in many ways and that other appropriate properties or states of the inductors can also be controlled, changed or specifically adjusted in order to enable an additional homogenization of the heat input and that the means described for controlling these properties are only examples that can be modified or replaced by others as required ([0039]). Since the control unit of Spintig adjusts the heat produced as needed to achieve homogenous heating in the hardening of a bearing ring, Spintig therefore reads on the limitation a controller configured to control the induction coil to produce a first amount of heat per unit area in the component until a predetermined temperature is reached and/or a predetermined time is elapsed, and after the predetermined temperature is reached and/or the predetermined time is elapsed, to control the induction coil to produce a second amount of heat per unit area in the component of claim 1 , and wherein the controller is configured to alternate during the hardening between a first heat input and a second heat input of claim 8 . However, Spintig does not explicitly disclose the second amount of heat being from 3% to 80% of the first amount of heat of claim 1 , nor a second, reduced heat input of claim 8 . Buschsieweke teaches a tool and method for heat treating at least part of a metallic structural part (Title). Buschsieweke and Spintig are considered analogous art since they are both similarly concerned with heat treating a metallic component and both comprise a component and inductors. Buschsieweke teaches heat treating by heating up the region to a temperature in a range between 500°C and 900°C (claim 22). Buschsieweke teaches heat-up and retention may be carried out by inductive heating ([0042]). Buschsieweke teaches integrating a cooldown phase to suit the cycle times of preceding and following processing steps individually over a broad spectrum, without adversely affecting quality of the attainable microstructure transformations ([0043]-[0044]). Buschsieweke teaches a first cooldown phase at a temperature between 200°C and 900°C ([0046]-[0047]) and a second cooldown phase target temperature below 200°C ([0047]). Since Buschsieweke teaches a heating temperature at 500-900°C and a first cooldown at 200-900°C, a cooldown temperature of 200°C from a heating temperature of 500°C or 900°C results in a cooldown temperature which is 40% of the heating temperature or 22% of the heating temperature respectively, which overlaps with the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that the temperature is correlated to the amount of heat generated and therefore the proportional changes in temperature will be comparable to the proportional changes in the resulting amounts of heat generated from the temperatures used in the hardening apparatus. A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. See MPEP § 2164.01. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method of Spintig, and adjusting and varying the temperature reduction rates, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Buschsieweke, in order to perform a hardening method using known and tested temperature changes, and consequently amounts of heat generated, predictably suitable for hardening metallic components, and suiting cycle times without adversely affecting quality of the attainable microstructure transformations, as taught by Buschsieweke. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler , 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I. Since the control unit of Spintig adjusts the heat produced as needed to achieve homogenous heating in the hardening of a bearing ring, the control unit of Spintig is capable of generating a second heat which is lesser than a first heat and/or is 3% to 80% of the first heat, as taught by Buschsieweke. Modified Spintig therefore reads on all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 . Regarding claim 2 , Spintig teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Spintig teaches inductors (3, 4 and 11) are fed by a separate alternating voltage source with the voltages (U1, U2 and U3) ([0030], a separate alternating voltage source reads on the claimed generator with alternating current of predetermined magnitude since a generator is a well-known voltage source). One of ordinary skill in the art understands the inductors of Spintig are “energized” by the voltage source and the inductors of Spintig therefore reads on the limitations wherein the induction coil is energizable by a generator with alternating current of predetermined magnitude of claim 2 . Spintig teaches adjusting the inductors to different frequencies and voltages to equalize heating of the bearing ring and avoid non-uniformities in the heating zones using a control unit ([0028]-[0029], [0033]-[0036], control unit 26 is shown in Fig. 6). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand adjusting the voltage and/or frequency of the alternating current necessarily produces an amount of heat per unit area and therefore adjusting the voltage and/or frequency adjusts the amount of heat per unit area produced by the inductors of Spintig. Spintig therefore reads on the limitations wherein the controller is configured to control the generator to adjust a current strength and/or a voltage and/or a frequency of the alternating current to produce the first amount of heat per unit area and the second amount of heat per unit area of claim 2 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102008033735 A1 of Spintig (as cited in IDS mailed 12/30/2022, cited in prior Office action, and with reference to its English machine translation) in view of US 2012/0103974 A1 of Buschsieweke (as cited in IDS mailed 05/20/2026), as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, in view of WO 2016/177733 A1 of Nierlich (as cited in prior Office action) . Regarding claim 3 , modified Spintig teaches the system of claim 2 as described above. Spintig teaches the main inductors 3 and 4 are moved in opposite directions along the track ([0018], Fig. 1). Spintig teaches the inductors are at a specific distance from the bearing ring ([0017]). The inductors shown in Fig. 1 necessarily are held by something for them to maintain their positions. Since the inductors of Spintig are held at a specific distance between the inductor and bearing ring, Spintig therefore reads on the limitation including an induction coil holder configured to hold the induction coil at a coupling distance from the component of claim 3 . With respect to the controller configured to hold the induction coil at a coupling distance, Spintig teaches moving the inductors and/or bearing ring and that the additional inductor can move in a circular, oval, rectangular, square, translational, or other directions ([0017], [0023]-[0027]). However, Spintig does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to control the holder to set a first coupling distance to produce the first amount of heat per unit area and to set a second coupling distance to produce the second amount of heat per unit area of claim 3 . Nierlich is similarly concerned with a method and device for inductive hardening of a workpiece (Abstract). Nierlich and Spintig are considered analogous art since they both teach an inductive hardening apparatus and their apparatuses both comprise at least one inductor coil, a component to be hardened, and a control unit. Nierlich teaches the inductor coils are moved at a variable distance from one another over the workpiece to be hardened ([0009]). Nierlich teaches the coordinated control of distance is achieved for example using a motor ([0014], one of ordinary skill in the art understands a control unit is commonly used to control motors). Nierlich teaches a control unit is used to determine control signals for the controllable components of the device for a motor ([0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control unit of Spintig to control the variable distance of the inductor coils, as taught by Nierlich, to enable control of the inductor movement taught by Spintig. Additionally, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a control unit to reliably control the distance of the inductors of Spintig as the use of a control unit for inductor movement is well-known in the art, as taught by Nierlich. Since the apparatus of modified Spintig uses a control unit to adjust the distance of the inductors, modified Spintig therefore reads on the limitations wherein the controller is configured to control the holder to set a first coupling distance to produce the first amount of heat per unit area and to set a second coupling distance to produce the second amount of heat per unit area of claim 3 . Modified Spintig therefore reads on all the limitations of claim 3 . Regarding claim 4 , modified Spintig teaches the system of claim 2 as described above. As depicted in Fig. 1, Spintig teaches the inductors (3, 4, and 11) are above the bearing ring (1). Spintig teaches that the bearing ring and/or the main inductors (3, 4, Fig. 1) can be set into a pendulum movement in the circumferential direction ([0017]) and therefore reads on the limitation wherein the induction coil and the component are movable relative to each other of claim 4 . While Spintig teaches a control unit and moving the inductors and/or bearing ring, Spintig does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to control a relative speed between the induction coil and the component. Nierlich is similarly concerned with a method and device for inductive hardening of a workpiece (Abstract). Nierlich and Spintig are considered analogous art since they both teach an inductive hardening apparatus and their apparatuses both comprise at least one inductor coil, a component to be hardened, and a control unit. Nierlich teaches at least one inductor coil is moved over the workpiece surface at a constant or variable speed to heat to a desired hardening or austenitizing temperature ([0014]). Nierlich teaches the specified speed v can be changed by a control unit ([0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control unit of Spintig to enable control of the variable speed of the inductor coils and achieve a desired hardening temperature, as taught by Nierlich. Modified Spintig therefore reads on the limitation wherein the controller is configured to control a relative speed between the induction coil and the component of claim 4 . Modified Spintig therefore reads on all the limitations of claim 4 . Regarding claims 5 and 6 , modified Spintig teaches the system of claim 4 as described above. Spintig teaches main inductors (3,4) can be set into a pendulum movement in the circumferential direction ([0017]). Spintig teaches main inductors 3 and 4 are moved in opposite directions along the track 2, as indicated by arrows in Fig. 1, in order to heat them section by section and successively until the main inductors meet again and are arranged with the smallest possible distance ([0018]). Spintig further teaches the movement of auxiliary inductor 11 is enabled for circular, oval, rectangular, square movement, or a translational back and forth movement ([0023]-[0025]). Spintig further teaches the auxiliary inductor is attached to a table which is movable in the x,y, and z directions and that the types of movement which are favorable for the auxiliary inductor 11 and how many degrees of freedom are favorable for its movement can be determined in each individual case by means of experiments ([0026]-[0027]). While Spintig teaches moving the inductors and a control unit, Spintig does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to set the relative speed of the induction coil and the component to a first speed until the predetermined temperature is reached and/or the predetermined time is elapsed and to set the relative speed of the induction coil and the component to a second speed greater than the first speed after the predetermined temperature is reached and/or the predetermined time is elapsed of claim 5 and wherein the first relative speed is selected to produce the first amount of heat per unit area, and the second relative speed is selected to produce the second amount of heat per unit area of claim 6 . Nierlich teaches at least one inductor coil is moved over the workpiece surface at a constant or variable speed to heat to a desired hardening or austenitizing temperature ([0014]). Nierlich teaches the specified speed v can be changed by a control unit ([0050]). The variable speed taught by Spintig has a finite number of solutions: (1) increasing, (2) maintaining, or (3) decreasing the input thereby either increasing or decreasing the speed. Since Spintig teaches the goal of adjusting the inductor is to avoid non-uniformities in the heating zones as described above and both Spintig and Nierlich have a common goal of achieving uniform heating, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the inductor speed will need to be increased at some point in the process and would adjust the input a necessary amount to achieve the desired temperature with a reasonable expectation for success. The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.). Here, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to increase the relative speed of the inductor and adjust the speed as needed to achieve the desired hardening temperature of the workpiece, as taught by Nierlich, which would implicitly result in different amounts of heats per unit area of the component being hardened. Spintig therefore reads on the limitations wherein the controller is configured to set the relative speed of the induction coil and the component to a first speed until the predetermined temperature is reached and/or the predetermined time is elapsed and to set the relative speed of the induction coil and the component to a second speed greater than the first speed after the predetermined temperature is reached and/or the predetermined time is elapsed of claim 5 and wherein the first relative speed is selected to produce the first amount of heat per unit area, and the second relative speed is selected to produce the second amount of heat per unit area of claim 6 . Modified Spintig therefore reads on all the limitations of claims 5 and 6 . Regarding claim 7 , modified Spintig teaches the system of claim 4 as described above. Spintig teaches hardening of a bearing ring (Abstract). Spintig teaches the bearing ring is heated to the desired hardening temperature up to a preselected depth ([0017], [0027]). Since the apparatus of Spintig heats to a desired temperature for hardening a bearing ring, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the apparatus of Spintig to reach temperatures including austenitization temperatures of various steels since steel is a well-known material used for bearing rings. Spintig therefore reads on the limitation wherein the predetermined temperature is an austenitization start temperature, an austenitization end temperature, or a temperature between the austenitization start temperature and the austenitization end temperature of claim 7 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 10-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102008033735 A1 of Spintig (as cited in IDS mailed 12/30/2022, as cited in prior Office action, and with reference to its English machine translation) . Regarding claims 10, 11, and 18 , Spintig teaches a method is described for hardening at least one raceway of a bearing ring (Abstract, reads on claimed hardening a component since a bearing ring is a component). Spintig teaches hardening at least one raceway (2, 2a, Figs. 1-6) of a bearing ring (1, reads on the claimed component) for a large-diameter rolling bearing, comprising arrangement of at least two main inductors (3, 4, inductors read on the claimed inductor coil since “induction coils” are generally referred to as “inductors” as described in [0002]) in the region of a common starting zone of the raceway and heating the raceway by means of the main inductors (3, 4, heating by means of an inductor reads on the claimed induction coil configured to induce an electrical current in the component to heat the component since one of ordinary skill in the art understands inductors heat by inducing an electrical current) and optionally applying an additional auxiliary inductor (11, also reads on the claimed inductor coil) in the region of the end zone preheating the track (claim 1, Figs. 1-6). Regarding the steel component of claims 10 and 11 , the bearing ring of Spintig reads on the claimed steel component since one of ordinary skill in the art understands that bearing rings are typically made of steel and can be hardened with heating devices such as the one disclosed by Spintig. A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. See MPEP § 2164.01. Since Spintig teaches a hardening method and the corresponding apparatus to perform the method using inductors, as depicted in Figs. 1-6, Spintig teaches inductive hardening and therefore reads on the limitation “an inductive hardening system for hardening a component, the inductive hardening system comprising: an induction coil configured to induce an electrical current in the component to heat the component” of claims 10 and 11 . Spintig teaches a bearing ring to be hardened (1, Fig. 1) and that the bearing ring and/or the main inductors (3, 4, Fig. 1) can be set into a pendulum movement in the circumferential direction ([0017]). Since the bearing ring treated by the method of Spintig is held at least by the surface on which it rests, the apparatus of Spintig shown in Fig. 1 reads on claimed component holder. Additionally, or alternatively, since the inductors of Spintig move, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fasten the bearing ring to secure its position using clamps or a similar part since fastening a part is well-known in the art. Spintig therefore reads on the limitation a component holder for holding the component of claims 10 and 11 . Spintig teaches controlling, adjusting or changing selected properties or states of the inductors (3, 4 and/or 11) for the purpose of heating ([0022]). Spintig teaches adjusting the inductors to different frequencies and voltages to equalize heating of the bearing ring and avoid non-uniformities in the heating zones ([0028]-[0029], [0035]). Spintig teaches a control unit (26, Fig. 6) which is used to control input to the inverters (23a, 23b) via line (25a, 25b). As shown in Fig. 6, Spintig teaches the control unit is connected to the voltage sources for the voltages U1, U2 (Fig. 5) which each contain a rectifier (22) connected to the usual power grid (21), to which an inverter (23a, 23b) is connected, the outputs of which are connected to a primary coil of a transformer (24) and a secondary coil of the transformers is connected to the supply lines (18) ([0033]-[0036]). Spintig teaches the control signals from the control unit determines the phase position of the output voltage of the inverter ([0036]), which ultimately controls the states of the inductors, as seen in Fig. 6. Since Spintig teaches adjusting the frequency and voltage of the inductors and using a control unit to adjust these properties with the goal of avoiding non-uniformities in the heating zones, the method of Spintig produces a first amount of heat when using a first frequency or voltage and a second amount of heat when adjusting the input of the inductors to a second frequency or voltage. Spintig teaches the invention is not limited to the described embodiments, which can be modified in many ways and that other appropriate properties or states of the inductors can also be controlled, changed or specifically adjusted in order to enable an additional homogenization of the heat input and that the means described for controlling these properties are only examples that can be modified or replaced by others as required ([0039]). Since the control unit of Spintig adjusts the heat produced as needed to achieve homogenous heating in the hardening of a bearing ring, Spintig therefore reads on the limitation controller adapted to control the induction coil to produce a first amount of heat per unit area in the steel component or a second amount of heat per unit area in the steel component and to alternate between controlling the induction coil to produce the first amount of heat and the second amount of heat until a predetermined temperature is reached and/or a predetermined time is elapsed of claim 10 , a controller adapted to control the induction coil to produce a first amount of heat per unit area in the steel component until a predetermined temperature is reached and/or a predetermined time is elapsed, and after the predetermined temperature is reached and/or the predetermined time is elapsed, to control the induction coil to produce a second amount of heat per unit area in the steel component of claim 11 , and wherein the controller is adapted to alternate during the hardening between a first heat input and a second heat input of claim 18 . While Spintig does not explicitly disclose the second amount of heat being from 3% to 80% of the first amount of heat of claims 10 and 11 , and a second, reduced heat input of claim 18 , nor second amount of heat being less than the first amount of heat of claim 10 , the adjusting of the frequency or voltage sent to the inductor to control the heating taught by Spintig has a finite number of solutions: (1) increasing, or (2) decreasing the input resulting in a higher or lower amount of heat produced. Since Spintig teaches the goal of adjusting the inductor is to avoid non-uniformities in the heating zones as described above, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the input will need to be lowered if the part subjected to the hardening exceeds a desired temperature and would adjust the input a necessary amount to achieve the desired temperature with a reasonable expectation for success. The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.). Here, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to lower the frequency or voltage of the inductor and, adjusting and varying the amount of reduction, such as within the claimed ranges, to produce a second heat that is lower than the first amount of heat produced. Since the control unit of Spintig adjusts the heat produced as needed to achieve homogenous heating in the hardening of a bearing ring, the control unit of Spintig is capable of generating a second heat which is lesser than a first heat and/or is 3% to 80% of the first heat. Spintig therefore reads on all the limitations of claims 10, 11, and 18 . Regarding claim 12 , Spintig teaches the system of claim 11 as described above. Spintig teaches inductors (3, 4 and 11) are fed by a separate alternating voltage source with the voltages (U1, U2 and U3) ([0030], a separate alternating voltage source reads on the claimed generator with alternating current of predetermined magnitude since a generator is a well-known voltage source). One of ordinary skill in the art understands the inductors of Spintig are “energized” by the voltage source and the inductors of Spintig therefore reads on the limitations wherein the induction coil is energizable by a generator with alternating current of predetermined magnitude of claim 12 . Spintig teaches adjusting the inductors to different frequencies and voltages to equalize heating of the bearing ring and avoid non-uniformities in the heating zones using a control unit ([0028]-[0029], [0033]-[0036], control unit 26 is shown in Fig. 6). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand adjusting the voltage and/or frequency of the alternating current necessarily produces an amount of heat per unit area and therefore adjusting the voltage and/or frequency adjusts the amount of heat per unit area produced by the inductors of Spintig. Spintig therefore reads on the limitations wherein the control unit is configured to control the generator to adjust a current strength and/or a voltage and/or a frequency of the alternating current to produce the first amount of heat per unit area and the second amount of heat per unit area of claim 12 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102008033735 A1 of Spintig (as cited in IDS mailed 12/30/2022, as cited in prior Office action, and with reference to its English machine translation), as applied to claims 11 and 12 above, in view of WO 2016/177733 A1 of Nierlich . Regarding claim 13 , Spintig teaches the system of claim 12 as described above. Spintig teaches the main inductors 3 and 4 are moved in opposite directions along the track ([0018], Fig. 1). Spintig teaches the inductors are at a specific distance from the bearing ring ([0017]). The inductors shown in Fig. 1 necessarily are held by something for them to maintain their positions. Since the inductors of Spintig are held at a specific distance between the inductor and bearing ring, Spintig therefore reads on the limitation including an induction coil holder configured to hold the induction coil at a coupling distance from the component of claim 13 . With respect to the control unit configured to hold the induction coil at a coupling distance, Spintig teaches moving the inductors and/or bearing ring and that the additional inductor can move in a circular, oval, rectangular, square, translational, or other directions ([0017], [0023]-[0027]). However, Spintig does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to control the holder to set a first coupling distance to produce the first amount of heat per unit area and to set a second coupling distance to produce the second amount of heat per unit area of claim 13 . Nierlich is similarly concerned with a method and device for inductive hardening of a workpiece (Abstract). Nierlich and Spintig are considered analogous art since they both teach an inductive hardening apparatus and their apparatuses both comprise at least one inductor coil, a component to be hardened, and a control unit. Nierlich teaches the inductor coils are moved at a variable distance from one another over the workpiece to be hardened ([0009]). Nierlich teaches the coordinated control of distance is achieved for example using a motor ([0014], one of ordinary skill in the art understands a control unit is commonly used to control motors). Nierlich teaches a control unit is used to determine control signals for the controllable components of the device for a motor ([0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control unit of Spintig to control the variable distance of the inductor coils, as taught by Nierlich, to enable control of the inductor movement taught by Spintig. Additionally, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a control unit to reliably control the distance of the inductors of Spintig as the use of a control unit for inductor movement is well-known in the art, as taught by Nierlich. Since the apparatus of modified Spintig uses a control unit to adjust the distance of the inductors, modified Spintig therefore reads on the limitations wherein the controller is configured to control the holder to set a first coupling distance to produce the first amount of heat per unit area and to set a second coupling distance to produce the second amount of heat per unit area of claim 13 . Modified Spintig therefore reads on all the limitations of claim 13 . Regarding claim 14 , Spintig teaches the system of claim 12 as described above. As depicted in Fig. 1, Spintig teaches the inductors (3, 4, and 11) are above the bearing ring (1). Spintig teaches that the bearing ring and/or the main inductors (3, 4, Fig. 1) can be set into a pendulum movement in the circumferential direction ([0017]) and therefore reads on the limitation wherein the induction coil and the component are movable relative to each other of claim 14 . While Spintig teaches a control unit and moving the inductors and/or bearing ring, Spintig does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to control a relative speed between the induction coil and the component. Nierlich is similarly concerned with a method and device for inductive hardening of a workpiece (Abstract). Nierlich and Spintig are considered analogous art since they both teach an inductive hardening apparatus and their apparatuses both comprise at least one inductor coil, a component to be hardened, and a control unit. Nierlich teaches at least one inductor coil is moved over the workpiece surface at a constant or variable speed to heat to a desired hardening or austenitizing temperature ([0014]). Nierlich teaches the specified speed v can be changed by a control unit ([0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control unit of Spintig to enable control of the variable speed of the inductor coils and achieve a desired hardening temperature, as taught by Nierlich. Modified Spintig therefore reads on the limitation wherein the controller is configured to control a relative speed between the induction coil and the component of claim 14 . Modified Spintig therefore reads on all the limitations of claim 14 . Regarding claims 15 and 16 , modified Spintig teaches the system of claim 14 as described above. Spintig teaches main inductors (3,4) can be set into a pendulum movement in the circumferential direction ([0017]). Spintig teaches main inductors 3 and 4 are moved in opposite directions along the track 2, as indicated by arrows in Fig. 1, in order to heat them section by section and successively until the main inductors meet again and are arranged with the smallest possible distance ([0018]). Spintig further teaches the movement of auxiliary inductor 11 is enabled for circular, oval, rectangular, square movement, or a translational back and forth movement ([0023]-[0025]). Spintig further teaches the auxiliary inductor is attached to a table which is movable in the x,y, and z directions and that the types of movement which are favorable for the auxiliary inductor 11 and how many degrees of freedom are favorable for its movement can be determined in each individual case by means of experiments ([0026]-[0027]). While Spintig teaches moving the inductors and a control unit, Spintig does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to set the relative speed of the induction coil and the component to a first speed until the predetermined temperature is reached and/or the predetermined time is elapsed and to set the relative speed of the induction coil and the component to a second speed greater than the first speed after the predetermined temperature is reached and/or the predetermined time is elapsed of claim 5 and wherein the first relative speed is selected to produce the first amount of heat per unit area, and the second relative speed is selected to produce the second amount of heat per unit area of claim 6 . Nierlich teaches at least one inductor coil is moved over the workpiece surface at a constant or variable speed to heat to a desired hardening or austenitizing temperature ([0014]). Nierlich teaches the specified speed v can be changed by a control unit ([0050]). The variable speed taught by Spintig has a finite number of solutions: (1) increasing, (2) maintaining, or (3) decreasing the input thereby either increasing or decreasing the speed. Since Spintig teaches the goal of adjusting the inductor is to avoid non-uniformities in the heating zones as described above and both Spintig and Nierlich have a common goal of achieving uniform heating, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the inductor speed will need to be increased at some point in the process and would adjust the input a necessary amount to achieve the desired temperature with a reasonable expectation for success. The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.). Here, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to increase the relative speed of the inductor and adjust the speed as needed to achieve the desired hardening temperature of the workpiece, as taught by Nierlich, which would implicitly result in different amounts of heats per unit area of the component being hardened. Modified Spintig therefore reads on the limitations wherein the controller is configured to set the relative speed of the induction coil and the component to a first speed until the predetermined temperature is reached and/or the predetermined time is elapsed and to set the relative speed of the induction coil and the component to a second speed greater than the first speed after the predetermined temperature is reached and/or the predetermined time is elapsed of claim 15 and wherein the first relative speed is selected to produce the first amount of heat per unit area, and the second relative speed is selected to produce the second amount of heat per unit area of claim 16 . Modified Spintig therefore reads on all the limitations of claims 15 and 16 . Regarding claim 17 , modified Spintig teaches the system of claim 14 as described above. Spintig teaches hardening of a bearing ring (Abstract). Spintig teaches the bearing ring is heated to the desired hardening temperature up to a preselected depth ([0017], [0027]). Since the apparatus of Spintig heats to a desired temperature for hardening a bearing ring, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the apparatus of Spintig to reach temperatures including austenitization temperatures of various steels since steel is a well-known material used for bearing rings. Spintig therefore reads on the limitation wherein the predetermined temperature is an austenitization start temperature, an austenitization end temperature, or a temperature between the austenitization start temperature and the austenitization end temperature of claim 17 . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 02/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the fact that the invention is "not limited" to the disclosed embodiments is not a basis to find that Spintig teaches any particular limitation of claim 1 or that it would have been obvious to make any particular modification to Spintig in order to arrive at the invention of claim 1 (remarks, page 13). Applicant requests that the examiner specifically identify where Sprintig teaches that a control unit configured to control the induction coil to produce a first amount of heat per unit area in the component until a predetermined temperature is reached and/or a predetermined time is elapsed, and after the predetermined temperature is reached and/or the predetermined time is elapsed, to control the induction coil to produce a second amount of heat per unit area in the component of claim 1 (remarks, page 14). Applicant argues that the record lacks any reason to modify Spintig in a manner that would result in the invention of claim 1, and claim 1 is therefore submitted to patentably distinguish over Spintig (remarks, page 15). In response, Spintig teaches heating to a desired hardening temperature ([0017]) and further teaches in order to achieve absolutely uniform heating even within the common heating zones 8 and 10, it is proposed according to the invention to take additional measures to even out the heat input, at least during those phases in which the initial and/or end zone 8, 10 is heated, and to control, adjust or change selected properties or states of the inductors 3, 4 and/or 11 for this purpose ([0022], emphasis added). Spintig teaches controlling, adjusting or changing selected properties or states of the inductors (3, 4 and/or 11) for the purpose of heating ([0022]). Spintig teaches adjusting the inductors to different frequencies and voltages to equalize heating of the bearing ring and avoid non-uniformities in the heating zones ([0028]-[0029], [0035]). Spintig teaches a control unit (26, Fig. 6) which is used to control input to the inverters (23a, 23b) via line (25a, 25b). As shown in Fig. 6, Spintig teaches the control unit is connected to the voltage sources for the voltages U1, U2 (Fig. 5) which each contain a rectifier (22) connected to the usual power grid (21), to which an inverter (23a, 23b) is connected, the outputs of which are connected to a primary coil of a transformer (24) and a secondary coil of the transformers is connected to the supply lines (18) ([0033]-[0036]). Spintig teaches the control signals from the control unit determines the phase position of the output voltage of the inverter ([0036]), which ultimately controls the states of the inductors, as seen in Fig. 6. Spintig therefore teaches heating to a desired temperature via controlling the inductors by a control unit, as outlined above and in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in this Office action. The basis of the rejection is not solely based on the modifications allowed by Spintig, as argued by Applicant, but rather on both the explicit and implicit teachings of Spintig as outlined in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in this Office action. Applicant argues that nothing in the record shows or suggests that Spintig teaches a controller configured in the manner required by claim 1 (remarks, page 14). In response, Spintig explicitly teaches a control unit connected to the inverters and rectifiers and that the inverters adjust the frequency and voltage outputs ([0034]-[0036]). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that these adjustments are done to control the heating of the raceway and bearing rings, and implicitly, the temperatures reached and amounts of heat generated in said raceway and bearing rings. In view of the instant disclosure, the “control unit” of Spintig is interpreted as synonymous with the claimed “controller”. However, “controller” has a 112(a) rejection in this Office action as it constitutes new matter. See 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in this Office action. Applicant argues that if the rejection continues to be based on the "obviousness to try" rationale of KSR, it is respectfully requested that the examiner identify the recognized problems that needed to be addressed and how "increasing" heat and "decreasing" heat per unit are solutions to those problems that were recognized in the prior art (remarks, page 14). In response, Spintig teaches in order to achieve absolutely uniform heating even within the common heating zones 8 and 10, it is proposed according to the invention to take additional measures to even out the heat input, at least during those phases in which the initial and/or end zone 8, 10 is heated, and to control, adjust or change selected properties or states of the inductors 3, 4 and/or 11 for this purpose ([0022], emphasis added). Spintig specifically teaches the problem of achieving uniform heating and adjusting the inductors to achieve the uniform heating in the different phases and heating zones. Spintig also explicitly teaches changing the frequencies of the heating currents gradually or continuously during the heating of critical zones ([0029]). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that the temperature can be increased or decreased as necessary to maintain the “absolutely uniform heating” taught by Spintig. It is well-known in the art that heating elements, such as inductors, may fluctuate in temperature over time, especially when exposed to an open air environment such as the claimed invention and the apparatus of Spintig. When uniform heating is required, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that monitoring the temperature is needed to adjust it as necessary to maintain the desired temperature. Additionally, or alternatively, due to the amended limitation of “controller configured to”, a new grounds of rejection is introduced in this Office action over Spintig in view of US 2012/0103974 A1 of Buschsieweke (as cited in IDS mailed 05/20/2026) to address specific temperatures used in hardening apparatus for metallic components. Applicant argues that new claims 11-18 correspond to claims 1-8, respectively, with the exception that the controller of these claims is defined as being "adapted to" perform certain functions rather than being "configured to" perform those functions (remarks, page 16). In response, the instant disclosure introduces new matter by claiming a “controller” and the limitation “adapted to”. See 112(a) rejections and specification objections in this Office action. While Applicant is correct in pointing out that “configured to” and “adapted to” are interpreted differently, the original disclosure did not recite a “controller” nor the limitations “adapted to” in the claims, specification, and/or drawings as originally filed. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Specifically, the limitations “controller configured to” of amended claims 1-5 and 8 and “controller adapted to” of amended claim 10 and new claims 11-15 and 18 necessitated new ground(s) of rejection. 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). 07-39 AIA 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. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYELA ALDAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday: 10 am - 7 pm and alternate Friday: 10 am - 6 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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. /M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1733 /REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 2 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 3 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 4 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 5 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 6 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 7 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 8 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 9 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 10 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 11 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 12 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 13 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 14 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 15 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 16 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 17 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 18 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 19 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 20 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 21 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 22 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 23 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 24 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 25 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 26 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 27 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 28 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 29 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 30 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/091,480 Page 31 Art Unit: 1733
Prosecution Insights