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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: ”1504” (fig. 15). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: recommend revising paragraphs 0065-0067 to disclose “temperature indicators 101a-c” (one revision in paragraph 0065 and two revisions in paragraph 0066) and “coil selectors 102a-c” (one revision in paragraph 0065 and three revisions in paragraph 0067).
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the terms “Wi-Fi,” “Bluetooth,” and “Zigbee” in paragraphs 0093 and 00113, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 17 of claim 1, recommend amending the claim to recite: “the cooking device.”
In line 21 of claim 1, recommend amending the claim to recite: “the plurality of light emitting elements…”
In claim 2, recommend amending the claim to recite: “the plurality of light emitting elements”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are the following:
“cooking device” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “device” and the functional limitations are “cooking” and “wherein the cooking device is configured to…transmit wireless power to the control knob, drive at least one heating coil based on movement of the control knob, determine a target coil to be controlled among the at least one heating coil based on a change in magnetic field detected by a sensor according to movement of the control knob, and control firepower of the target coil.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “transmit coil,” a “rectifying circuit,” and an “inverter circuit.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites “a magnetic sensor configured to detect a change in magnetic field caused by movement of the magnet.” Claim 12 is dependent on claim 1, which includes a “sensor” that detects “a change in magnetic field.” The number of sensors that are required in claim 12 for detecting a change in the magnetic field is unclear. Are two sensors required or is just one sensor required? Although the Specification discloses a sensor 320 and another sensor 450, these sensors appear to be sensors for two different embodiment (there is no disclosure of an embodiment in the Specification with two magnetic sensors). For the purpose of the examination, claim 12 will be interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation as requiring at least one magnetic sensor.
Claim 16 recites “a first magnet of the control knob.” Claim 16 is dependent on claim 1, which includes a “magnet” on the bottom surface of a control knob. The number of control-knob magnets that are required in claim 16 is unclear. Are two magnets required or is just one magnet required? The Specification only discloses one first magnet 403. For the purpose of the examination, claim 16 will be interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation as requiring at least one magnet in the control knob.
Claims 17-19 rejected based on their dependency to claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Has et al. (DE-102010039560-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Hong et al. (KR-20170123981-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Regarding claim 1, Has teaches a cooking system (fig. 1) comprising:
a cooking device (hob plate 2, fig. 1, coil 23, fig. 2 and “basic electronics,” para 0070); and
a control knob (knob 9, fig. 1) attachable to the cooking device (attaches “by means of magnetic force,” para 0085) and including a plurality of light emitting elements (light sources 30, fig. 4; “light-emitting diodes,” para 0101),
wherein the cooking device (control device 8, fig. 1; includes a coil 23, fig. 2 and “basic electronics” that are “rectified,” para 0070, and on “the primary side of an inductive transformer,” para 0063; the basic electronics are construed as including the equivalent of a rectifying circuit and an inverter circuit) is configured to, with the control knob attached to the cooking device (arrangement shown in figs. 1-2):
transmit wireless power to the control knob (energy is transmitted wirelessly between coil 23 and coil 12, para 0096; coil 12 is in the knob 9, fig. 2),
drive at least one heating coil (“preferably drive the primary side of an inductive transformer,” para 0063; “inductors,” para 0084; the inductors have “induction coils,” para 0003) based on movement of the control knob (“a cooking zone can be selected by tilting and that an operating parameter of this selected cooking zone can be adjusted by turning the control element,” para 0019),
determine a target coil (inductor coils in cooing zones 4-7, fig. 1) to be controlled among the at least one heating coil based on a change in magnetic field detected by a sensor (changes in the magnetic field are detected by “Hall sensors,” para 0016) according to movement of the control knob (“by tilting at an angle to the vertical axis one of the cooking zones 4 to 7 can be selected,” para 0085), and
control firepower of the target coil (“by rotating around the axis A an operating parameter of these selected cooking zones 4 to 7 can be set,” para 0085; the operating parameter of the cooking zone is construed as the claimed “firepower”), and
wherein the control knob (knob 9, fig. 1) comprises:
a housing (covers 10 and 19, fig. 2);
a magnet (holding magnet 13, fig. 2) on a bottom surface of the housing (surface 21, fig. 2) and configured to be attachable to a cooking device (magnet 13 magnetically attaches to hob plate 2, fig. 2);
a receive coil (coil 12, fig. 2) inside the housing and configured to, with the magnet attached to the cooking device, receive wireless power from the cooking device (para 0096);
a plurality of light emitting elements (light sources 30, fig. 4) in the housing;
a communication module (“data transmission device,” para 0106) configured to, with the magnet attached to the cooking device (communication happens “inductively” between the coils, paras 0033-0036; construed such that communication happens during the inductive positioning between the coils 12 and 23 shown in fig. 2 when the knob is magnetically attached), communicate with the cooking device (paras 0105-0106);
a controller (control device 8, fig. 1) configured to, with the magnet attached to the cooking device (fig. 2), receive magnetic field data varying by movement of the control knob from the cooking device through the communication module (para 0085; “data signal to be sent when the user touches the control element with their hand or finger,” para 0065; para 0101)
Has, figs. 2 and 4
PNG
media_image1.png
270
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
394
324
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Has does not explicitly disclose a controller configured to control the plurality of light emitting elements based on the received magnetic field data.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking devices, Hong teaches a controller (control module 330, fig. 1) configured to control the plurality of light emitting elements (light sources 340, fig. 14) based on the received magnetic field data (“rotation detection” using a “Hall sensor,” para 0107; para 0138).
Hong, fig. 14
PNG
media_image3.png
556
602
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Has, in view of the teachings of Hong, by using a control module 330, as taught by Hong, inside the knob 9, as taught by Has, in order to use the control module to turn on the light sources as the cooking knob is rotated, for the advantage of indicating the temperature of the corresponding cooking zone (Hong, para 0138; Has teaches adjusting an “illuminated area” based on the “rotating and/or tilting the control element 9,” para 0116).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Has in view of Hong as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 2. Specifically, Hong teaches wherein the controller (control module 330, fig. 1) is configured to control the plurality of light emitting devices (light sources 340, fig. 14) based on a preset light emitting pattern (the light sources turn on as the knob rotates clockwise which is construed as the claimed “pattern,” para 0138) associated with the magnetic field data (para 0107).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Has in view of Hong as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 2. Specifically, Has teaches movement of the housing in a Z-axis direction (“tilting at an angle to the vertical axis,” para 0085) or linear motion of the housing on an XY-plane (not explicitly disclosed). Additionally, Hong teaches wherein the controller (control module 330, fig. 1) is configured to determine a light emission zone (light points 19, fig. 15) based on movement of the housing (para 0138), and control at least one of the plurality of light emitting elements (light sources 340, fig. 14) which is located in the light emission zone to emit light (para 0134).
Regarding claim 4, Has teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to keep a position of the light emission zone constant while the housing is rotated, and control the plurality of light emitting elements moved into the light emission zone by rotation of the housing to emit light sequentially.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking devices, Hong teaches wherein the controller (control module 330, fig. 1) is configured to keep a position of the light emission zone constant while the housing is rotated (the point lights 19 in fig. 15 remain constant during rotation because a dial 34 is used during rotation; the dial 34 is independent of the light sources 340, fig. 14), and control the plurality of light emitting elements moved into the light emission zone (point lights 19, fig. 15) by rotation of the housing to emit light sequentially (para 0138).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Has, in view of the teachings of Hong, by using a dial 34, as taught by Hong, around the knob 9, as taught by Has, in order to control the cooking device based on the rotation of the dial instead of rotation of the whole knob, for the advantage of enhancing the sense of luxury given to the user and making the user aware of whether the dial is rotated (Hong, para 0012).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Has in view of Hong as set forth above regarding claim 4 teaches the invention of claim 5. Specifically, Hong teaches wherein the controller (control module 330, fig. 1) is configured to keep a position of the light emission zone constant while the housing is rotated (the point lights 19 in fig. 15 remain constant during rotation because a dial 34 is used during rotation; the dial 34 is independent of the light sources 340, fig. 14), and control the plurality of light emitting elements moved into the light emission zone (fig. 15) to change color of light emitted from the light emission zone based on a direction and angle of the rotation of the housing (the light sources 340 change color from being off to turning on as the dial is rotated clockwise, para 0138; clockwise rotation is construed as being the claimed “direction and angle of the rotation”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Has in view of Hong as set forth above regarding claim 4 teaches the invention of claim 6. Specifically, Hong teaches wherein the controller (control module 330, fig. 1) is configured to control the plurality of light emitting elements to change color of the light emitted from the light emission zone (fig. 15) at every preset rotation angle based on the rotation of the housing which continues in a same direction (the light sources 340 change color from being off to turning on as the dial is rotated clockwise, para 0138; the angle from the center of the knob to each of the points 19 is construed as the claimed “preset rotation angle,” fig. 15; rotation clockwise is construed as the claimed “rotation …in a same direction,” para 0138).
Regarding claim 7, Has teaches wherein the controller is configured to control all the plurality of light emitting elements to emit light for a preset period of time in response to reception of the wireless power (“Switching the energy transmission on and off can also cause the light sources to blink,” para 0063; blinking the light sources for a certain time duration is construed as the claimed “preset period of time”).
Regarding claim 8, Has teaches wherein the housing includes: a light transmission window (“upper cover,” para 0066) formed of a transparent material or a translucent material (“a gemstone or other light-transparent component may be provided,” para 0067).
Regarding claim 9, Has teaches wherein the controller is configured to, with the magnet attached to the cooking device (fig. 2), determine reception or blocking of the wireless power based on whether the magnet is attached to a magnetic substance located in a knob area of the cooking device (“when the energy transfer is activated, the light sources in the control element illuminate. Switching the energy transmission on and off can also cause the light sources to blink,” para 0063; switching the energy transmission on is construed as determining reception; switching the energy transmission off is construed as determining blocking).
Regarding claim 10, Has teaches wherein the control knob (knob 9, fig. 2) further comprising:
a button assembly (control panel 28, figs. 4-5; para 0101) which attaches the magnet to the cooking device (“The control element 9 is held in place on the control surface 3 by means of magnetic force,” para 0085) or separates the magnet from the cooking device based on pressure applied from outside (para 0086).
Regarding claim 11, Has teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine reception or blocking of the wireless power based on switching between attachment and separation of the magnet to and from the cooking device (“In one design of the operating device, energy is only transferred from the basic electronics in the operating element…Switching the energy transmission on and off can also cause the light sources to blink,” para 0063; switching the energy transmission on when the knob is in the operating element is construed as attachment; switching the energy transmission off when the knob is not in the operating element is construed as separation).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Has in view of Hong as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 12. Specifically, Has teaches wherein the control knob further comprising: a magnetic sensor (“plurality of Hall sensors, para 0016) configured to detect a change in magnetic field caused by movement of the magnet (para 0016). Additionally, Hong teaches wherein the controller (control module 330, fig. 1) is configured to control the plurality of light emitting elements (light sources 340, fig. 14) based on at least one of a change in magnetic field detected by the magnetic sensor or the magnetic field data received from the cooking device (based on “rotation detection” using a “Hall sensor,” para 0107; para 0138).
Regarding claim 13, Has teaches wherein the cooking device is configured to determine the target coil (para 0019) based on movement of the control knob in a Z-axis direction (“tilting at an angle to the vertical axis,” para 0085) or linear motion of the control knob on an XY-plane (not explicitly disclosed).
Regarding claim 14, Has teaches wherein the cooking device is configured to, with the control knob attached to the cooking device (fig. 2), control firepower of the target coil based on rotation of the control knob (“by rotating around the axis A an operating parameter of these selected cooking zones 4 to 7 can be set,” para 0085).
Regarding claim 15, Has teaches wherein the cooking device configured to increase or decrease firepower of the target coil based on the rotation of the control knob which continues in a same direction (“a running light display in a clockwise or counterclockwise direction can also
indicate a corresponding direction of operation with regard to operating condition settings
for the control element,” para 0060).
Regarding claim 16, Has teaches wherein the cooking device configured to transmit wireless power to the control knob (para 0096) based on attachment of a first magnet (holding magnet 13, fig. 2) of the control knob to a second magnet (magnet 22, fig. 2) located in a knob area (area of hob plate 2, fig. 2) of the cooking device.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Has et al. (DE-102010039560-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Hong et al. (KR-20170123981-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above and further in view of Kang et al. (US-20170303346-A1).
Has teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second magnet is provided in the form of a rotational sphere.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking devices, Kang teaches wherein the second magnet (second magnetic substance 530 and bearing 540, fig. 8) is provided in the form of a rotational sphere (“the bearing 540 may be a plurality of spheres,” para 0137; “in the form of” is synonymous with “suggestive of;” the second magnetic substance 530 and bearing 540 are suggestive of the shape of a sphere due to the spheres in the bearing 540, fig. 8).
Kang, fig. 8
PNG
media_image4.png
305
924
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Has, in view of the teachings of Kang, by using a handle member 540, as taught by Kang, instead of the holding magnet 22, as taught by Has, in order to use a handle member that allows the user to rotate the knob easily due to the bearing (Kang, paras 0138-0139).
Claim 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Has et al. (DE-102010039560-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Hong et al. (KR-20170123981-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above and further in view of Bach (US-20180301301-A1).
Regarding claim 18, Has teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the cooking device further comprises a support shaft arranged in the knob area to support movement of the second magnet.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking devices, Bach teaches wherein the cooking device further comprises a support shaft (shaft around the aperture 31 along the attractor plate 28, fig. 6) arranged in the knob area (area of outer surface 24 that the knob 16 fits on, fig. 2) to support (“Second magnetic assembly 36 is included within attractor plate 28,” para 0043) movement of the second magnet (“first magnetic assembly 34 and second magnetic assembly 36 are magnetically engaged or coupled to rotate about central axis A,” para 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Has, in view of the teachings of Bach, by using the knob assembly, as taught by Bach, instead of the holding magnet 22, as taught by Has, in order to use an improved knob assembly that is mounted inside a retainer ring that bounds the attractor plate, and as a result the magnet in the control knob, for the advantage of using causing the knob to resistant to movement, which might cause accidental activation, e.g., by a careless bystander or a small child (paras 0005 and 0042).
Bach, fig. 5
PNG
media_image5.png
1024
808
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Has in view of Hong and Bach as set forth above regarding claim 18 teaches the invention of claim 19. Specifically, Bach teaches wherein the second magnet (second magnetic assembly 36, fig. 11) is provided in the form of a disc (fig. 11 is construed as being in the form of a disc) having a center supported by the supporting shaft (center of magnetic assembly 36 aligns with the shaft at the internal aperture 31, fig. 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schilling et al. (US-20030178290-A1) teach a magnetic rotary device for a cooker.
Stambaugh et al. (US-20100253653-A1) teach a virtual knob for a burner.
Schmickal et al. (US-20240117970-A1) teach an invention similar to the Instant Application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 3/12/2026