DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-11 and 13-21 filed on 03/17/2026 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 13, 15-17 have been amended.
Claim 12 has been cancelled.
Claim 21 has been newly added.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
It appears that all the limitations of claim 4 are included in amended claim 1, as heating the water to a pre-heat temperature requires determining the pre-heat temperature. Claim 4, as well as amended claim 1, base the value of the pre-heat temperature on the received set temperature.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramey (US 4,393,527 A).
Regarding claim 9, Ramey teaches a method of heating a pool with a heating system, the method comprising heating pursuant to a stepped water temperature profile based on a received input from a user (FIG. 3 and Col. 2, Lines 13-18: “the desired temperature vs. time profile for the supplemental heater is achieved by providing a plurality of thermostats all of which sense the pool water temperature. Each thermostat is preset to actuate the supplemental heater at a different temperature level”; Col. 6, Lines 40-43: A user can set the thermostat 58 to “a desired water temperature”), by:
operating the heating system in a pre-heat mode for heating the water to a pre-heat temperature (FIG. 3 and Col. 7, Lines 3-6: “heater 12 is now controlled by thermostat 30 which has been set to 76° F. This condition corresponds to the horizontal portion of the curve 56 in FIG. 3 between 7:00 a.m. and 1:30 p.m.,” where the pre-heat temperature corresponds to the temperature set by thermostat 30); and
operating the heating system in a usage mode for heating the water from the pre-heat temperature to a set temperature, (FIG. 3 and Col. 7, Lines 10-14: “The heater 12 is now controlled by the thermostat 58 and thus begins heating the water 10 to the temperature setting of thermostat 58 which is 79° F. This condition corresponds to the ramp portion of the curve 56 beginning at 1:30 p.m.,” where the set temperature corresponds to the temperature set by thermostat 58),
wherein the set temperature is greater than the pre-heat temperature (FIG. 3 shows the set temperature is greater than the pre-heat temperature, for example a pre-heat temperature of 76° F and a set temperature of 79° F),
wherein the heating system comprises a single heating source or device for heating water that is received from the pool and returning the water to the pool at a heated temperature (FIG. 1 and Col. 3, Lines 33-40: “The water 10 passes through a filter 20, a diverter valve 22 and the heater 12, returning to the pool. An alternate path is from filter 20 through the solar collectors 14 and the heater 12, returning to the pool. The path of the water flow is dependent upon the setting of the diverter valve 22. If diverter valve 22 is open, the pool water bypasses the solar collectors 14”).
Regarding claim 10, Ramey teaches the method of claim 9.
Ramey further teaches where the stepped water temperature profile is a two-step water temperature profile (FIG. 3 and Col. 8, Lines 36-30: “the control system of the present invention thus described achieves temperature profile matching by providing two temperature set points as set by thermostats 30 and 58”).
Regarding claim 11, Ramey teaches the method of claim 9.
Ramey further teaches wherein the received input is at least one of an initial activation of the heating system or the set temperature (Col. 7, Lines 23-26: “The temperature settings of the thermostats 30 and 58 and the time settings for actuating the switch 60 may be chosen to create a variety of shapes for the temperature profile 56 of the heater 12”).
Regarding claim 13, Ramey teaches the method of claim 9.
Ramey further teaches further comprising holding the water at the pre-heat temperature for a period of time before operating the heating system in the usage mode (FIG. 3 and Col. 7, Lines 6-7: “The heater 12 will maintain the 76° F. water temperature until 1:30 p.m.”).
Regarding claim 14, Ramey teaches the method of claim 9.
Ramey further teaches wherein heating the pool is further based on additional input (Col. 7, Lines 23-26: “The temperature settings of the thermostats 30 and 58 and the time settings for actuating the switch 60 may be chosen to create a variety of shapes for the temperature profile 56 of the heater 12”), and
wherein the additional input comprises at least one of historical heating performance of a heating source, actual heating performance of the heating source, a type of heating source, environmental conditions, or historical notice from the user (Col. 9, Lines 37-43: “the thermostat settings and cam actuated switch time settings will be modified from time to time during the year in accordance with the anticipated solar heat available during that particular season,” which corresponds to environmental conditions).
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramey (US 4,393,527 A), in view of Gawthrop (US 2021/0247076 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ramey teaches a method of heating a pool or spa with a heating system, the method comprising receiving a set temperature for water of the pool or spa from a user (Col. 6, Lines 40-43: A user can set the thermostat 58 to “a desired water temperature”);
holding the water at the pre-heat temperature for a duration (FIG. 3 and Col. 7, Lines 3-7: “heater 12 is now controlled by thermostat 30 which has been set to 76° F. This condition corresponds to the horizontal portion of the curve 56 in FIG. 3 between 7:00 a.m. and 1:30 p.m.. The heater 12 will maintain the 76° F. water temperature until 1:30 p.m.,” where the pre-heat temperature corresponds to the temperature set by thermostat 30); and
heating the water from the pre-heat temperature to the set temperature after holding the water at the pre-heat temperature (FIG. 3 and Col. 7, Lines 10-14: “The heater 12 is now controlled by the thermostat 58 and thus begins heating the water 10 to the temperature setting of thermostat 58 which is 79° F. This condition corresponds to the ramp portion of the curve 56 beginning at 1:30 p.m.,” where the set temperature corresponds to the temperature set by thermostat 58).
While Ramey teaches heating the water to a pre-heat temperature less than the set temperature (Col. 9, Lines 33-39: “the optimum temperature profile for the heater 12 is one which closely matches the optimum solar temperature profile 52. The embodiment of the control system of the present invention thus described achieves temperature profile matching by providing two temperature set points as set by thermostats 30 and 58”), Ramey does not explicitly teach “heating the water to a pre-heat temperature less than the set temperature and based on the set temperature from the user.”
Gawthrop further teaches heating the water to a pre-heat temperature less than the set temperature and based on the set temperature from the user ([0044]: “The first preheat mode 20 is initiated by the controller 18 when the sensed water temperature at the mixing tank 80 is less that the preset water dispensing temperature 22 and is less than a target temperature. The target temperature refers to a water temperature at the mixing tank 80 that is preset by the controller 18 which is less than the preset water dispensing temperature 22 by a predetermined number of degrees, such as by 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit,” where the target temperature corresponds to a pre-heat temperature and the preset temperature is set by the user, as described in [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the method of Ramey to incorporate the teachings of Gawthrop so as to include heating the water to a pre-heat temperature less than the set temperature and based on the set temperature from the user. Doing so would allow water to be preheated with the goal of minimizing the time needed to bring the water temperature to the desired value ([0002-0004]: “Conventionally, the control of water temperature is accomplished by manually adjusting the flow rates of hot and cold water back and forth, so that the mixture achieves a desired temperature. Such a process conventionally requires much trial and error in adjusting the water temperature before the user even able to start showering or bathing. This adjustment process not only wastes the user's time and potentially could harm the user but also wastes liters of water and energy cooling and/or heating the water. In just the United States, about 1.1 billion liters of water is wasted every day in attempt to achieve the desired water temperature. In addition, during the adjustment process, it requires energy to reheat the water. Consequently, reducing water usage not only saves the water itself, but also conserves valuable energy and resulting energy costs”).
Regarding claim 2, Ramey in view of Gawthrop teaches the method of claim 1.
Ramey further teaches wherein the duration is a predetermined duration (Col. 2, Lines 18-20: “By means of a time clock each of the various thermostats is used to sequentially control the supplemental heater at predetermined times of the day”).
Regarding claim 3, Ramey in view of Gawthrop teaches the method of claim 1.
Ramey further teaches wherein heating the water to the set temperature is based on an activation input (Col. 2, Lines 16-18: “Each thermostat is preset to actuate the supplemental heater at a different temperature level”).
Regarding claim 4, Ramey in view of Gawthrop teaches the method of claim 1.
While Ramey teaches generating a temperature profile which matches the solar heating profile (Col. 9, Lines 33-39: “the optimum temperature profile for the heater 12 is one which closely matches the optimum solar temperature profile 52. The embodiment of the control system of the present invention thus described achieves temperature profile matching by providing two temperature set points as set by thermostats 30 and 58”), Ramey does not explicitly teach “determining the pre-heat temperature based on the received set temperature.”
Gawthrop further teaches further comprising determining the pre-heat temperature based on the received set temperature ([0044]: “The first preheat mode 20 is initiated by the controller 18 when the sensed water temperature at the mixing tank 80 is less that the preset water dispensing temperature 22 and is less than a target temperature. The target temperature refers to a water temperature at the mixing tank 80 that is preset by the controller 18 which is less than the preset water dispensing temperature 22 by a predetermined number of degrees, such as by 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit,” where the target temperature corresponds to a pre-heat temperature and the preset temperature is set by the user, as described in [0042]).
Regarding claim 5, Ramey in view of Gawthrop teaches the method of claim 1.
Ramey further teaches further comprising maintaining the water at the set temperature (FIG. 3 and Col. 7, Lines 14-17: “When the water temperature reaches the desired 79° F., the heater 12 maintains this temperature level until the time clock 40 deenergizes the pump motor 18 at 6:00 p.m.”).
Regarding claim 8, Ramey in view of Gawthrop teaches the method of claim 1.
Ramey further teaches wherein heating the water to the set temperature is based on additional input (Col. 7, Lines 23-26: “The temperature settings of the thermostats 30 and 58 and the time settings for actuating the switch 60 may be chosen to create a variety of shapes for the temperature profile 56 of the heater 12”), and
wherein the additional input comprises at least one of historical heating performance of a heating source, actual heating performance of the heating source, a type of heating source, environmental conditions, or historical notice from a user (Col. 9, Lines 37-43: “the thermostat settings and cam actuated switch time settings will be modified from time to time during the year in accordance with the anticipated solar heat available during that particular season,” which corresponds to environmental conditions).
Regarding claim 15, Ramey teaches a method of heating a pool or spa, the method comprising receiving a first input and a second input for a pool or spa from a user, the first input comprising at least a set temperature (Col. 4, Lines 1-4: A user can set a first input, the thermostat 30, to “a desired water temperature”; Col. 6, Lines 40-43: A user can set a second input, the thermostat 58, to “a desired water temperature”);
operating the heating system in a usage mode for heating the water to a set temperature based on the received second input from the user after the pre-heat mode (FIG. 3 and Col. 7, Lines 10-14: “The heater 12 is now controlled by the thermostat 58 and thus begins heating the water 10 to the temperature setting of thermostat 58 which is 79° F. This condition corresponds to the ramp portion of the curve 56 beginning at 1:30 p.m.,” where the set temperature corresponds to the temperature set by thermostat 58).
While Ramey teaches heating the water to a pre-heat temperature less than the set temperature (Col. 9, Lines 33-39: “the optimum temperature profile for the heater 12 is one which closely matches the optimum solar temperature profile 52. The embodiment of the control system of the present invention thus described achieves temperature profile matching by providing two temperature set points as set by thermostats 30 and 58”), Ramey does not explicitly teach “operating a heating system in a pre-heat mode for heating water of the pool or spa to a pre-heat temperature based on the first input from the user, wherein the pre-heat temperature is less than the set temperature.”
Gawthrop further teaches operating a heating system in a pre-heat mode for heating water of the pool or spa to a pre-heat temperature based on the first input from the user, wherein the pre-heat temperature is less than the set temperature ([0044]: “The first preheat mode 20 is initiated by the controller 18 when the sensed water temperature at the mixing tank 80 is less that the preset water dispensing temperature 22 and is less than a target temperature. The target temperature refers to a water temperature at the mixing tank 80 that is preset by the controller 18 which is less than the preset water dispensing temperature 22 by a predetermined number of degrees, such as by 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit,” where the target temperature corresponds to a pre-heat temperature and the preset temperature is set by the user, as described in [0042]).
The reasons to combine Gawthrop into Ramey are the same as articulated in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, Ramey in view of Gawthrop teaches the method of claim 15.
Ramey further teaches wherein the first input comprises at least one of the set temperature or a set time (Col. 7, Lines 23-26: “The temperature settings of the thermostats 30 and 58 and the time settings for actuating the switch 60 may be chosen to create a variety of shapes for the temperature profile 56 of the heater 12”).
Regarding claim 17, Ramey in view of Gawthrop teaches the method of claim 15.
Ramey further teaches wherein the first input comprises the set temperature without a set time (Col. 4, Lines 1-4: “The temperature at which the switch 36 opens is a function of the setting of the spring 38. The adjustment of the spring 38 is made by the swimming pool user by rotating a calibrated temperature control knob to a desired water temperature setting,” where the action of setting the control knob sets the temperature without a set time).
Regarding claim 18, Ramey in view of Gawthrop teaches the method of claim 15.
Ramey further teaches further comprising controlling the heating system to operate in the pre-heat mode or in a deactivated mode based on the water being at the set temperature for a predetermined set temperature duration (Col. 7, Lines 14-17: “When the water temperature reaches the desired 79° F., the heater 12 maintains this temperature level until the time clock 40 deenergizes the pump motor 18 at 6:00 p.m.,” which corresponds to controlling the heating system to operate in a deactivated mode).
Regarding claim 19, Ramey in view of Gawthrop teaches the method of claim 15.
Ramey further teaches wherein the second input is received after the first input (Col. 6, Lines 54-60: “the thermostats 30 and 58 contain normally closed switches 36 which are moved to their open positions when the water temperature reaches the settings of the thermostats,” thus, the first input is received, the water heats up, and the second input is received).
Regarding claim 20, Ramey in view of Gawthrop teaches the method of claim 15.
Ramey further teaches further comprising determining the pre-heat temperature based on additional input (Col. 7, Lines 23-26: “The temperature settings of the thermostats 30 and 58 and the time settings for actuating the switch 60 may be chosen to create a variety of shapes for the temperature profile 56 of the heater 12”), and
wherein the additional input comprises at least one of historical heating performance of a heating source, actual heating performance of the heating source, a type of heating source, environmental conditions, or historical notice from a user (Col. 9, Lines 37-43: “the thermostat settings and cam actuated switch time settings will be modified from time to time during the year in accordance with the anticipated solar heat available during that particular season,” which corresponds to environmental conditions).
Regarding claim 21, Ramey in view of Gawthrop teaches the method of claim 1.
Ramey further teaches wherein the heating system comprises a single heating source or device for heating water that is received from the pool and returning the water to the pool at a heated temperature (FIG. 1 and Col. 3, Lines 33-40: “The water 10 passes through a filter 20, a diverter valve 22 and the heater 12, returning to the pool. An alternate path is from filter 20 through the solar collectors 14 and the heater 12, returning to the pool. The path of the water flow is dependent upon the setting of the diverter valve 22. If diverter valve 22 is open, the pool water bypasses the solar collectors 14”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramey (US 4,393,527 A), in view of Gawthrop (US 2021/0247076 A1), and in view of Benco (US 2008/0311898 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ramey in view of Gawthrop teaches the method of claim 1.
Ramey and Gawthrop do not explicitly teach “generating an alert based on the water being heated to the pre-heat temperature.”
Benco further teaches further comprising generating an alert based on the water being heated to the pre-heat temperature ([0014]: “a cellular telecommunications network may be used as a vehicle for enabling the monitoring of home swimming pool information and the subsequent alarming or notification to the subscriber when some pre-defined user thresholds have been reached. For example, the level and temperature of the pool water may be monitored,” where the threshold could be defined to be the pre-heat temperature).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the method of Ramey in view of Gawthrop to incorporate the teachings of Benco so as to include generating an alert based on the water being heated to the pre-heat temperature. Doing so would allow the user to monitor the temperature of the pool or spa remotely ([0014]: “In this day and age when many mobile subscribers lead an active lifestyle where they are always on the go, it would be useful to be able to use their mobile handset for the purpose of making routine activities more automatic”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramey (US 4,393,527 A), in view of Gawthrop (US 2021/0247076 A1), in view of Benco (US 2008/0311898 A1) and in view of Steinberg (US 2011/0290893 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Ramey in view of Gawthrop and in view of Benco teaches the method of claim 6.
Ramey, Gawthrop, and Benco do not explicitly teach “wherein the alert includes generating a query about whether to heat the water to the set temperature.”
While Benco teaches generating an alert based on the water being heated to pre-defined user thresholds and remotely controlling the heater in response to the alert ([0014]: “a cellular telecommunications network may be used as a vehicle for enabling the monitoring of home swimming pool information and the subsequent alarming or notification to the subscriber when some pre-defined user thresholds have been reached. For example, the level and temperature of the pool water may be monitored… Then depending on the alarmable condition that arose, the mobile subscriber may be notified via his/her cell phone (also referred to in general as a mobile terminal) of the condition, and they may respond by remotely controlling the heater... through the use of their mobile terminal”), Benco does not explicitly teach “wherein the alert includes generating a query about whether to heat the water to the set temperature.”
Steinberg, in the analogous field of automatic temperature regulation, further teaches wherein the alert includes generating a query about whether to heat the water to the set temperature ([0085]: Server 106 may “transmit a message to mobile device 105 that asks the user if the server should change the current setpoint”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the method of Ramey in view of Gawthrop and in view of Benco to incorporate the teachings of Steinberg so as to include the alert including generating a query about whether to heat the water to the set temperature. Doing so would allow a user to confirm that they do, in fact, want to heat the water to the set temperature with the goal of minimizing wasted energy ([0009]: conventional programmable “thermostats have proven to be only minimally effective in practice. Because they have such primitive user interfaces, they are difficult to program, and so many users never bother at all, or set them up once and do not alter the programming even if their schedules change”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Gawthrop.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant submits that Ramey lacks a system with a single heat source and therefore fails to teach or suggest “the heating system comprises a single heating source or device for heating water that is received from the pool and returning the water to the pool at a heated temperature.” However, the term “comprises” does not exclude the presence of additional elements or components. Thus, the claim requires the presence of at least one heating source, but does not preclude additional heating sources from being present in the system. Moreover, Ramey teaches that the water flow may bypass the solar collectors 14, as shown in FIG 1. and described in Col. 3, Lines 33-40, which means that Ramey does not require two heating sources.
Regarding the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, applicant submits that claim 4 is of proper dependent form. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Amended claim 1 recites “heating the water to a pre-heat temperature less than the set temperature and based on the set temperature from the user.” Claim 4 recites “determining the pre-heat temperature based on the received set temperature.” Thus, claim 1 already establishes that the pre-heat temperature is derived from or dependent upon the set temperature.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Magdalena Kossek whose telephone number is (571)272-5603. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Fennema can be reached on (571)272-2748. 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.I.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights