DETAILED ACTION
This is a first reissue action on the merits of U.S. Patent 11,280,462 B1, addressing the filing dated 21 August 2023, and subsequent preliminary amendment dated 14 November 2023.
The following is the status of all claims with status provided with respect to the patented claims:
Claims 1-9 are pending, each respective claim containing at least one amendment
No claims are added or cancelled
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 .
Original Disclosure - Definition
The present application is a reissue of US Patent No. 11,280,462, which issued from App. No. 17/481,690 having a filing date of 22 September 2021. Any subject matter added during either the examination of the present reissue application or the earlier concluded examination of 17/481,690 does not constitute part of the “original disclosure”.
Maintenance Fees
Review of the file indicates payment of the maintenance fees are current.
Abstract
The Abstract filed on 21 August 2023 only included the front page of the patent. The second page of the abstract, which includes the additional pages of “References Cited”, is missing from the file. A new copy of both pages of the abstract is required.
35 USC §251
Statutory Authority:
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §251, which forms the basis for issues under this heading:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
***
(c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.— The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest.
Rejection – Oath/Declaration:
The reissue Oath/Declaration filed 21 August 2023, is defective for the following (see 37 CFR §1.175 and MPEP §1414):
The space of the error statement (bottom of Oath: page 1 of 2) is blank. While noting applicant filed a separate statement noting intent of language change, it is unclear if this is the actual error statement that renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative. As this is a broadening reissue (amendments such as “A safety [sign] device”, per Claim 1, line 1, and “a push [momentary] switch”, per line 3, results in a broadening amendment), the examiner references 1414(II), which requires that a claim being broadened be identified and a word, phrase or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid. The language does not provide how the language renders the original patent invalid.
Applicant must provide a new Oath/Declaration addressing the above noted issues. Further, applicant should respectfully note that if a specification will not be included in the subsequent Oath/Declaration, the box “is attached hereto” should not be checked, but rather applicant should check the box stating “was filed on _________”.
As a result of the defective Oath/Declaration, claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 USC §251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR §1.175.
Claim Rejection – Recapture
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). A broadening aspect is present in the reissue which was not present in the application for patent. The record of the application for the patent shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
MPEP 1412.02 establishes a three-step test for recapture. The three-step process is as follows:
(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.
Step 1:
Independent claims 1, 6 and 9, and by result dependent claims 2-5, 7 and 8 under examination are broader than patented claims 1, 6 and 9 and thereby dependent claims 2-5, 7 and 8, respectively. The following is noted with respect to the claims under current examination:
Independent Claim 1 under reissue examination does not require the “push monetary switch” or the “light bezel”. Claims 2-5 depend from Claim 1.
Independent Claim 6 under reissue examination does not require the “light bezel”. Claims 7 and 8 depend form Claim 6.
Independent Claim 9 under reissue examination does not require the broadened “push switch” be a “push momentary switch”.
Therefore step 1 of the three-step test is met for Independent claims 1, 6 and 9 and thereby dependent claims 2-5, 7 and 8.
Step 2:
The step of determining whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution includes two sub-steps. The first sub-step is to determine whether the applicant surrendered any subject matter in the prosecution of the original application. MPEP 1412.02 defines surrendered subject matter as a claim limitation that was originally relied upon by applicant in the original prosecution to make the claims allowable over the art.
MPEP 1412.02(I)(B)(1)(A) states “[w]ith respect to whether applicant surrendered any subject matter, it is to be noted that a patent owner (reissue applicant) is bound by the argument that applicant relied upon to overcome an art rejection in the original application for the patent to be reissued, regardless of whether the Office adopted the argument in allowing the claims. Greenliant Systems, Inc. v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 1271, 103 USPQ2d 1951, 1958 (Fed. Cir. 2012). As pointed out by the court, ‘[i]t does not matter whether the examiner or the Board adopted a certain argument for allowance; the sole question is whether the argument was made.’ Id.”
During the prosecution of the ‘462 patent, the Examiner rejected all claims, including independent claims 1, 6 and 9, citing Hsu (U.S. Publication 2008/0295371 A1) in view of Baldwin (U.S. Patent 3,610,860 A) and Share (U.S. Patent 5,376,314 A) (see Non-Final Rejection dated 19 November 2021: beginning page 2). The Applicant responded with arguments and amendments. The Applicant responded 15 December 2021, amending each of independent claims 1, 6 and 9, along with dependent claim 6. Each of the claims added in limitations including features containing the language at issue.
Therefore, the Patent Owner amended independent claims 1, 6 and 9 and dependent claim 7 and argued that the prior art did not include the amended language in including the features at issue . Therefore, the newly presented claims must include the limitations of claims 1, 6 and 9 limitation. Claims 1, 6 and 9 under reissue fail to disclose the respective language addressed above.
Therefore, the limitations of the “push monetary switch” and/or the “light bezel”, as applicable are limitations which are considered surrendered subject matter.
The second sub-step is to determine whether any of the broadening of the reissue claims is in the area of the surrendered subject matter. The examiner must analyze all of the broadening aspects of the reissue claims to determine if any of the omitted/broadened limitation(s) are directed to limitations relied upon by applicant in the original application to make the claims allowable over the art.
Claims 1, 6, and 9 are being broadened to omit the surrendered subject matter.
Therefore step 2 of the three-part test is met.
Step 3:
MPEP 1412.02(I)(B)(1)(B) states “[w]ith respect to the “second step” in the recapture analysis, it is to be noted that if the reissue claim(s), are broadened with respect to the previously surrendered subject matter, then recapture will be present regardless of other unrelated narrowing limitations. In the decision of In re Mostafazadeh, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the Federal Circuit stated:
[T]he recapture rule is violated when a limitation added during prosecution is eliminated entirely, even if other narrowing limitations are added to the claim. If the added limitation is modified but not eliminated, the claims must be materially narrowed relative to the surrendered subject matter such that the surrendered subject matter is not entirely or substantially recaptured. Id. at 1361.”
Therefore, the third step of the analysis does not need to be performed for claims 1, 6 and 9.
Therefore, claims 1-9 improperly recapture surrendered subject matter.
35 USC 251 – New Matter Rejection
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. The added material which is not supported by the prior patent is as follows:
Claim 1: the following is noted -
“safety device” (line 1) does not appear in the issued patent. Upon search, the language directed to “device” is a “cabinet” (see e.g., Col. 4, line 60 and elsewhere; see also element 10), and not to the safety device with the claimed switch and light, nor is there sufficient disclosure to conclude that a “safety device” has been claimed; further, the disclosure appears only to be directed to a “safety sign” and the disclosure is not broad enough to encompass a “safety device”.
“push switch” (line 3) does not appear in the prior patent with respect to the disclosed invention. While noting “push switch” does appear in the patent, the language is directed to replacing a “push switch” with the disclosed invention (see, e.g., Col 4, line 5). The disclosed invention makes reference only to the language as patented: push momentary switch.
Claims 2-5: the following in noted -
“safety device” appears throughout the claims, both in the preambles and bodies. The argument for new matter is the same here as previously provided, which will not be repeated here for brevity.
Claim 6: the following is noted –
“safety device” and “push switch” appear throughout the claim. The argument for new matter is the same here as previously provided, which will not be repeated here for brevity.
Claims 7 and 8: the following is noted –
“safety device” appears throughout the claims in the preambles. The argument for new matter is the same here as previously provided, which will not be repeated here for brevity.
Claim 9: the following is noted –
“safety device” and “push switch” appear throughout the claim. The argument for new matter is the same here as previously provided, which will not be repeated here for brevity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim rejections – 35 USC 112(a):
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under this heading for the reasons provided under the 35 USC 251 new matter rejection (see above), which will not be repeated here for brevity.
Claim rejections – 35 USC 112(b):
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.
Below is a reproduction of applicant’s claims with the examiner’s comments in bold italics. The examiner may not address repeat issues under this heading for brevity.
Claim 1: (currently amended) A safety device having a safety switch with an integrated light, comprising:
a push switch for making an electrical connection;
an AC to DC electrical circuit;
a back-up battery for powering the safety device when an AC electrical power failure occurs; and
a lighted safety switch includes a push switch and a light source, said AC to DC electrical circuit provides electrical current (“said AC to DC….provides electrical current” is indefinite because under the rules of electric circuit theory, a circuit provides a path for a current to travel; as written it appears as though the circuit is a source for the current via the term “provides”) to power said light source, said light source illuminates said push switch, wherein said lighted safety switch is retained in said safety device instead of a non-light emitting switch and an AC indicator light (indefinite as written as “instead of…” denotes a non-existent limitation, so it is unclear why this limitation is necessary), depressing said push switch changes a source of power to said lighted safety switch from AC voltage (indefinite as written because “AC voltage” is not a source of power but rather a type of voltage provided) to said back-up battery.
Claim 2: (currently amended) The safety [sign] device having a safety switch with an integrated light of claim 1, further comprising:
a switch logic circuit includes said AC to DC electrical circuit and a microprocessor, said AC to DC electrical circuit receives input from a building AC voltage line and outputs a low level DC voltage (indefinite as to how built AC outputs low level DC or what causes this, such as a resistor or divider; further, “low level DC voltage” is indefinite as “low level” is a relative term and the metes and bounds of what constitutes “low level” cannot be determined based on the language provided), the low level DC voltage is used to monitor the AC voltage of the building by said microprocessor (indefinite as to how the microprocessor achieves this), said light source is connected to an output of said microprocessor, wherein said microprocessor stops supplying electrical power to said light source when an AC electrical power failure occurs (this language is indefinite because it appears that if a power failure occurs, the microprocessor would inherently stop supplying power because there is no power; in short, it is unclear how a microprocessor stops supplying electrical power, as it is not a source providing the power).
Claim 3: (original) The safety device having a safety switch with an integrated light of claim 2, further comprising:
a back-up battery (indefinite as this limitation has already been provided) for powering the safety device and said microprocessor when the AC electrical power failure occurs.
Claim 4: (currently amended) The safety device having a safety switch with an integrated light of claim 2 wherein:
said push switch is connected to said microprocessor, depressing said push switch causes said back-up battery to be tested (indefinite as to the metes and bounds of what constitutes “tested”).
Claim 5: (original) The safety [sign]device having a safety switch with an integrated light of claim 2, further comprising:
a software program contained in said microprocessor monitors at least one input of said microprocessor (indefinite as to the metes and bounds of what constitutes an “input” as claimed) to see if there has been a change in status (indefinite as to how software can detect a change, as usually a detection device, such as a sensor, detects change; indefinite as to the metes and bounds of what constitutes “status”) of said at least one input.
Claim 6: (currently amended) A safety device having a safety switch with an integrated light, comprising:
a push switch for making an electrical connection;
a microprocessor;
an AC to DC electrical circuit having a DC output connected to said microprocessor;
a back-up battery for powering the safety device and said microprocessor when an AC electrical power failure occurs; and
a lighted safety switch includes a push switch and a light source, said AC to DC electrical circuit provides electrical current to power said light source, said light source illuminates said push switch, wherein said microprocessor sends electrical power to flash said light source when a voltage output from said AC to DC electrical circuit is not received by said microprocessor. This claim is replete with issues previously addressed in Claims 1-6, which will not be repeated here for brevity.
Claim 7: (original) The safety device having a safety switch with an integrated light of claim 6, further comprising:
a switch logic circuit includes said AC to DC electrical circuit and a microprocessor, said AC to DC electrical circuit receives input from a building AC voltage line and outputs a low-level DC voltage, the low-level DC voltage is used to monitor the AC voltage of the building by said microprocessor. This claim is replete with issues previously addressed in Claims 1-6, which will not be repeated here for brevity.
Claim 8: (original) The safety device having a safety switch with an integrated light of claim 7, further comprising:
a software program contained in said microprocessor monitors at least one input of said microprocessor to see if there has been a change in status of said at least one input. This claim is replete with issues previously addressed in Claims 1-6, which will not be repeated here for brevity.
Claim 9: (currently amended) A safety device having a safety switch with an integrated light, comprising:
a microprocessor;
a back-up battery;
an AC to DC electrical circuit having a DC output connected to said microprocessor;
a push switch is connected to said microprocessor, wherein depressing said push switch causes said back-up battery to be tested;
a lighted safety switch includes a push switch (indefinite as this limitation has already been provided) and a light source, said AC to DC electrical circuit provides electrical current to power said light source, said light source illuminates said push switch, wherein said back-up battery is tested for different lengths of time according to the number of times said push switch is depressed (“wherein said back-up battery…number of times said push switch is depressed” is indefinite as the metes and bounds of the interrelationship between the number of times of depressing the push switch and the different lengths of time”; in other words, it is indefinite as to how the “different length of time” is indicated or how depressing the push switch “x” number of times relates to a length of testing. In addition to what is indicated in this claim, the claim is replete with issues previously addressed in Claims 1-6, which will not be repeated here for brevity).
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Recker et al. (U.S. Publication 2012/0080944), hereafter “Recker” and equivalent).
Below is a reproduction of the provided claims with the examiner’s comments in bold italics.
Claim 1: Recker discloses A safety device having a safety switch with an integrated light, comprising:
a push switch (paragraph [0686] notes a test button can be incorporated) for making an electrical connection (as would occur, because by depressing the switch, the back-up battery is tested);
an AC to DC electrical circuit (paragraphs [0435] and [0642]);
a back-up battery (paragraph [0035] notes a battery back-up may be used) for powering the safety device when an AC electrical power failure occurs (as disclosed); and
a lighted safety switch (as best understood, this includes the push switch) includes a push switch (the test button as described above) and a light source (paragraph [0307] notes the test button, or push switch, may be illuminated), said AC to DC electrical circuit provides electrical current to power said light source (as would occur based on the wiring of the system), said light source illuminates said push switch (as disclosed it is illuminated), wherein said lighted safety switch is retained in said safety device (as disclosed) instead of a non-light emitting switch and an AC indicator light (this is not present as best understood), depressing said push switch changes a source of power to said lighted safety switch from AC voltage to said back-up battery (see paragraph [0686]).
Claim 2: Recker discloses The safety device having a safety switch with an integrated light of claim 1, further comprising:
a switch logic circuit includes said AC to DC electrical circuit and a microprocessor (interpreted as the same microprocessor previously claimed), said AC to DC electrical circuit receives input from a building AC voltage line and outputs a low level DC voltage (as noted in paragraph [0197] the converter may be used, it would be “low-level” using the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the patented specification), the low level DC voltage is used to monitor the AC voltage of the building by said microprocessor (an inherent monitoring would be present based on the “low level” output), said light source is connected to an output of said microprocessor (either directly or indirectly), wherein said microprocessor stops supplying electrical power to said light source when an AC electrical power failure occurs (as would naturally occur via redirection to the back-up battery).
Claim 3: Recker discloses The safety device having a safety switch with an integrated light of claim 2, further comprising:
a back-up battery (interpreted as the same “back-up battery” previously claimed) for powering the safety device and said microprocessor when the AC electrical power failure occurs (as previously discussed, when the AC power is no longer received, the back-up battery supplies power, which would include power to the microprocessor and the safety device, as best understood).
Claim 4: Recker discloses The safety device having a safety switch with an integrated light of claim 2 wherein:
said push switch is connected to said microprocessor (it would be connected either directly or indirectly), depressing said push switch causes said back-up battery to be tested (paragraph [0686] notes the test).
Claim 5: Recker discloses The safety device having a safety switch with an integrated light of claim 2, further comprising:
a software program contained in said microprocessor (the microprocessor would necessarily have a software program in order to operate as intended; the disclosure further notes that software is used throughout the system e.g., paragraphs [0246], [0317] and [0337]) monitors at least one input of said microprocessor to see if there has been a change in status of said at least one input (the disclosure generally states that any information may be collected and stored, which meets the claimed limitation).
Claim 6: Recker discloses A safety device having a safety switch with an integrated light, comprising:
a push switch (paragraph [0686] notes a test button can be incorporated) for making an electrical connection (as would occur, because by depressing the switch, the back-up battery is tested);
a microprocessor (paragraph [0698] notes a microprocessor may be used);
an AC to DC electrical circuit (paragraphs [0435] and [0642]) having a DC output connected to said microprocessor (this would occur either directly or indirectly);
a back-up battery (paragraph [0035] notes a battery back-up may be used) for powering the safety device and said microprocessor when an AC electrical power failure occurs (as disclosed); and
a lighted safety switch (as best understood, this includes the push switch) includes a push switch (the test button as described above) and a light source (paragraph [0307] notes the test button, or push switch, may be illuminated), said AC to DC electrical circuit provides electrical current to power said light source (as would occur based on the wiring of the system), said light source illuminates said push switch (as disclosed), wherein said microprocessor sends electrical power to flash said light source when a voltage output from said AC to DC electrical circuit is not received by said microprocessor (this would occur via testing the back-up battery; the electrical circuit would be disconnected in order to test the battery backup).
Claim 7: Recker discloses The safety device having a safety switch with an integrated light of claim 6, further comprising:
a switch logic circuit includes said AC to DC electrical circuit and a microprocessor (interpreted as the same microprocessor previously claimed), said AC to DC electrical circuit receives input from a building AC voltage line and outputs a low-level DC voltage (as noted in paragraph [0197] the converter may be used, it would be “low-level” using the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the patented specification), the low-level DC voltage is used to monitor the AC voltage of the building by said microprocessor (an inherent monitoring would be present based on the “low level” output).
Claim 8: Recker discloses The safety device having a safety switch with an integrated light of claim 7, further comprising:
a software program contained in said microprocessor (the microprocessor would necessarily have a software program in order to operate as intended; the disclosure further notes that software is used throughout the system e.g., paragraphs [0246], [0317] and [0337]) monitors at least one input of said microprocessor to see if there has been a change in status of said at least one input (the disclosure generally states that any information may be collected and stored, which meets the claimed limitation).
Claim 9: Recker discloses A safety device (paragraph [0297] teaches the system can be used in numerous applications including, but not limited to, exit sign, lighting, path lights, etc.) having a safety switch with an integrated light (paragraph [0307] teaches a push button can be illuminated), comprising:
a microprocessor (paragraph [0698] notes a microprocessor may be used);
a back-up battery (paragraph [0035] notes a battery back-up may be used);
an AC to DC electrical circuit (paragraphs [0435] and [0642]) having a DC output connected to said microprocessor (this would occur either directly or indirectly);
a push switch (paragraph [0686] notes a test button can be incorporated) is connected to said microprocessor (it would be connected either directly or indirectly), wherein depressing said push switch causes said back-up battery to be tested (paragraph [0686] notes the test would check if the device switches to the backup battery);
a lighted safety switch (as best understood, this includes the push switch) includes a push switch (the test button as described above) and a light source (paragraph [0307] notes the test button, or push switch, may be illuminated), said AC to DC electrical circuit provides electrical current to power said light source (as would be the result based on electrical wiring), said light source illuminates said push switch (as disclosed in paragraph [0307]), wherein said back-up battery is tested for different lengths of time according to the number of times said push switch is depressed (paragraph [0686], teaches that different tests can occur based on “sequences of different duration presses” which meets the claimed limitation, which meets the claimed limitation).
Continuing Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 11,280,462 B1 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sprio (U.S. Publication 2023/0417380 A1)
Hasia U.S. Publication 2021/0159725 A1)
Boulanger et al. (U.S. Publication 2020/0340635 A1)
Hsu (U.S. Publication 2016/0148472 A1)
Hetrick et al. (U.S. Publication 2011/0134624 A1)
Wong et al. (U.S. Publication 2007/0096663 A1)
Bowman (U.S. Patent 4,682,147)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM V GILBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-9055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0800-0430 Eastern.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571.272.6928. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
[rest of this page intentionally left blank]
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.
/WILLIAM V GILBERT/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
CONFEREES:
/MATTHEW J KASZTEJNA/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993