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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 16-31), characterized as being “drawn to an inductive heating arrangement and a method of calibrating the arrangement” in the reply filed on 7/6/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant’s request for a rejoinder is acknowledged. In accordance with MPEP 821.04, in order to be eligible for rejoinder, a claim to a nonelected invention must depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim. Thus, a request for a rejoinder will be approved if the withdrawn claims include all of the limitations of the claims that are eventually determined to be allowable.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under PCT Rule 11.13(b) because Fig. 1 contains cross-sections indicated by solid black shading rather than oblique hatching. Corrected drawings are required in which cross-sections are indicated by oblique hatching which does not impede the clear reading of reference signs and leading lines.
The drawings are objected to under PCT Rule 11.13(e) because the reference character “300” in Fig. 4 is not simple and clear but instead overlaps and interferes with the arrow from step 303.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“power supply electronics,” “DC/AC inverter,” and “resonant switching power amplifier” in claim 16;
“calibration apparatus” in claims 26; and
“reference susceptor arrangement” in claim 30
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “the tunable oscillator to output a switching signal having the determined operating switching frequency switching frequency” in page 21, lines 7-8 contains a duplicated term.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 16, 23 and 29-30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “at least a capacitor and at least an inductor,” which should read “at least one capacitor and at least one inductor” for consistency with standard claim terminology.
Claims 16 recites “an inductive heating arrangement” and subsequently refers to “the heating arrangement,” and claims 29 and 30 similarly refers to “the heating arrangement,” omitting the term “inductive”. It is unclear whether “the heating arrangement” refers to the previously recited “inductive heating arrangement,” or another heating arrangement.
Claim 23 recites “a range between ±5 percent of a nominal inductance value,” which should read “a range of ±5 percent,” since “between” requires two bounding values and is grammatically inconsistent with the single value recited.
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:
“controller” in claims 16 and 25-28; and
“calibration apparatus” in claim 26.
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.
Regarding the term “controller”, the recited functions are:
Receiving a current signal from the current sensor indicative of the DC supply current, and tuning the tunable switching frequency of the switching signal in response to the received current signal in order to tune the DC supply current drawn from the DC power source to be in a predetermined range (claim 16);
setting up the tunable oscillator to output a switching signal having an operating switching frequency determined in response to the received current signal, for which operating switching frequency the DC supply current drawn from the DC power source is in the predetermined range (claim 25);
communicating the current signal to the calibration apparatus and to receive a signal communicated from the calibration apparatus indicative of the determined operating switching frequency (claim 26);
being operatively coupled to the current sensor and the transistor switch driver circuit in a feedback-loop configuration (claim 27); and
determining in response to the current signal an operating switching frequency of the switching signal for which in operation the DC supply current drawn from the DC power source is in the predetermined range (claim 28).
The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification for the “controller” is: a microprocessor, a programmable microprocessor, a microcontroller, or an application specific integrated chip (ASIC) or other electronic circuitry capable of providing control. Page 8, lines 9-11.
Regarding the term “calibration apparatus” in claim 26, the recited function is determining in response to the current signal an operating switching frequency of the switching signal for which in operation the DC supply current drawn from the DC power source is in the predetermined range. The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification is a calibration controller (p. 7, ln. 21) of which the recited functions and structures are discussed above.
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 21, 22, 26 and 31 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 21 recites “a tolerance of a capacitance of the capacitor is in a range between ±2 percent and ±4 percent of a nominal capacitance value of the capacitor.” It is unclear what range is being claimed, for example, whether the claimed range refers to a tolerance magnitude that may fall anywhere between 2 percent and 4 percent of the nominal capacitance value, or a range of capacitance values extending from -2 percent to +4 percent of the nominal capacitance value, or some other range. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted under their broadest reasonable interpretation as: “a range between ±4 percent.” Correction or clarification is required.
Claim 22 recites “a tolerance of an inductance of the inductor is in a range between ±3 percent and ±7 percent of a nominal inductance value of the inductor,” which is unclear for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 21. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted under their broadest reasonable interpretation as: “a range between ±7 percent.” Correction or clarification is required.
Claim 26 recites “wherein the controller is operatively couplable to a calibration apparatus configured to determine in response to the current signal an operating switching frequency of the switching signal for which in operation the DC supply current drawn from the DC power source is in the predetermined range, and wherein the controller is further configured to communicate the current signal to the calibration apparatus and to receive a signal communicated from the calibration apparatus indicative of the determined operating switching frequency.” It is unclear whether claim 26 is directed to the “inductive heating arrangement” of claim 16, or something more than the inductive heating arrangement. Specifically, the specification describes the calibration apparatus as being separate from the inductive heating arrangement (¶ [0026]: “The operating switching frequency of the switching signal ... may be determined by the controller of the heating arrangement or by a calibration apparatus for tuning the output power of the heating arrangement, which is not part of the heating arrangement”) By positively reciting the structure and function of the calibration apparatus, rather than merely reciting that the controller is configured to be operatively couplable to a calibration apparatus, claim 26 renders the metes and bounds of the claimed invention unclear as to whether an additional apparatus, separate from the claimed inductive heating arrangement, is being positively claimed. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim 31 recites “tuning the operating switching frequency of the switching signal,” which is indefinite because it is unclear whether “the switching signal” refers to the switching signal output by the transistor switch driver circuit to the transistor switch, as recited in claim 16 and referenced in claim 30, or to the switching signal recited at the end of claim 30, which recites “setting up the tunable oscillator to output a switching signal having the determined operating switching frequency.” For the purpose of examination, the “switching signal” is interpreted as the switching signal output by the transistor switch driver circuit to the transistor switch, as recited in claim 16. Correction or clarification is required.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16-25 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fursa et al. (WO 2018096000) hereinafter Fursa, in view of Okazaki et al. (CN 101669281) hereinafter Okazaki, and further in view of Abi Aoun et al. (US 20200037402) hereinafter Abi Aoun.
Regarding claim 16, Fursa teaches, in Fig. 4,
an inductive heating arrangement (100, “inductive heating device”) configured to heat an aerosol-forming substrate (Fig. 3: 20, “aerosol-forming substrate”) (p. 1, lns. 13-15: “aerosol-generating systems comprising … an electrically operated heat source … to heat the aerosol-forming substrate”), the inductive heating arrangement (100) comprising:
a DC power source (150, “DC power source”) and power supply electronics (160, “power supply electronics”) comprising a DC/AC inverter (Fig. 6: 162, “DC/AC inverter”) connected to the DC power source (150) (Abstract: “DC/AC converter (162) connected to the DC power supply (150)”; the examiner acknowledges that terms, DC/AC inverter and DC/AC converter are used interchangeably),
wherein the DC/AC inverter (162) comprises a power amplifier (p. 17, lns. 5-6: “DC/AC converter may comprise a Class-E power amplifier”) with at least one transistor switch, at least one transistor switch driver circuit associated with the transistor switch (p. 17, lns. 6-7: “a Class-E power amplifier comprising a transistor switch and a transistor switch driver circuit”) and an LC load network (p. 16, ln. 27: “The DC/AC converter may comprise an LC load network”) comprising at least a capacitor (Fig. 7: C2, “capacitor”) and at least an inductor (110) (p. 16, lns. 28-29: “The inductor may be arranged in series with a capacitor in the LC load network,” which is shown in Fig. 7 as well),
wherein the inductor (annotated Fig. 4: 111, “coil”) is configured to generate an alternating magnetic field during operation of the heating arrangement (100) (p. 5, lns. 8-9: “inductive heating device … comprising an induction source [100] that generates an alternating electromagnetic field”) for inductively heating the aerosol-forming substrate (20) (p. 1, lns. 6-7: “an inductive heating device for heating an aerosol-forming substrate”),
wherein the transistor switch driver circuit (p. 17, ln. 7: “transistor switch driver circuit”) configured to output a switching signal to the transistor switch (p. 17, ln. 6: “transistor switch”) (p. 33, lns. 11-13: “a Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor (MOSFET), a transistor switch supply circuit indicated by the arrow 1622 [in Fig. 7] for supplying the switching signal (gate-source voltage) to the FET 1621 [, a transistor switch]”) having a tunable switching frequency (p. 17, lns. 30-32: “The microcontroller may be programmed to control the duration of the time interval between successive pulses of power supplied by the DC power supply”; since it is known that frequency is the reciprocal of the pulse period, the examiner interprets the “control[lable] duration of the time interval between successive pulses” as the “tunable switching frequency”);
a current sensor (p. 18, ln. 6: “current sensor”) configured to determine a DC supply current drawn from the DC power source (150) (p. 18, lns. 6-7: “a current sensor for measuring the DC current drawn from the DC power supply”) during operation of the heating arrangement (100); and
a controller (Fig. 6: 161, “MCU”; p. 32, ln. 32: “a microcontroller (microprocessor control unit) 161,” which is an MCU) configured to receive a current signal (“DC current drawn from the DC power supply,” which the examiner interprets as the “current signal”) from the current sensor (“current sensor”) indicative of the DC supply current (“DC current”).
PNG
media_image1.png
186
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Fursa
PNG
media_image2.png
286
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Fursa, annotated
PNG
media_image3.png
295
573
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Fursa
PNG
media_image4.png
251
449
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 of Fursa
Regarding claim 16, Fursa teaches the DC/AC inverter comprises a power amplifier (“Class-E power amplifier”), but does not explicitly teach the power amplifier is a resonant switching power amplifier.
However, Okazaki teaches, in Fig. 1, a power amplifier is a resonant switching power amplifier (¶ [0106]: “E-class amplifier 20, … configured to include … field effect transistor (FET) switch element 21, input inductor 22; LC resonant circuit and the switching element 21 … In addition, the LC resonant circuit can also be configured to output inductor and capacitor in series connection,” based on which the examiner interprets the E-class amplifier as the “resonant switching power amplifier”).
Okazaki is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the same problem of adjusting the resonant frequency for an LC circuit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the power amplifier of Fursa as a resonant switching power amplifier as taught by Okazaki, in order to achieve the E-stage working condition, which is the operating condition associated with a Class-E amplifier, and thereby “control (optimize) the circuit constants,” which Okazaki teaches (Okazaki, abstract ) is a well-known method of operating for the Class-E amplifier taught by Fursa.
PNG
media_image5.png
245
419
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Okazaki
Regarding claim 16, Fursa and Okazaki does not explicitly teach
a tunable oscillator is configured to output a switching signal to the transistor switch having a tunable switching frequency; and
a controller is configured to tune the tunable switching frequency of the switching signal in response to the received current signal in order to tune the DC supply current drawn from the DC power source to be in a predetermined range.
However, Abi Aoun teaches, in Fig. 2b, an RCL resonance circuit (100) comprising:
a tunable oscillator (102, “H-Bridge driver”) configured to output a switching signal to the transistor switch having a tunable switching frequency (¶ [0058]: “allows the frequency of the alternating current to be controlled”; ¶ [0059]: “controller 114 controls the H-Bridge 102... to provide an alternating current... at a given drive frequency f”; ¶ [0067]: “control the H-bridge 104 to scan through a range of drive frequencies f,” which the examiner interprets the H-Bridge driver as corresponding to the claimed “tunable oscillator” configured to output a “switching signal... having a tunable switching frequency”); and
a controller (114, “controller”) configured to tune the tunable switching frequency of the switching signal in response to the received current signal (¶ [0070]: “ the pick-up coil 120b is placed so as to intercept a portion of a magnetic field produced by the DC supply voltage wire or track 110 when the DC current flowing therethrough changes,” which the examiner interprets the voltage VIND induced in the pick-up coil 120b as indicative of the DC supply current, and thus corresponding to the claimed “current signal... indicative of the DC supply current”; ¶ [0081]: “the controller 114 may determine one or more of the first frequencies... and control the resonance circuit 100 to be driven at this first frequency,” which the examiner interprets as the controller tuning the switching frequency in response to the received current signal) in order to tune the DC supply current drawn from the DC power source to be in a predetermined range (Fig. 3b: fA’-fA; ¶ [0079]: “specific points (black circles) marked on the response 300 corresponding to different drive frequencies f.sub.A, f.sub.B, f.sub.c, f′.sub.A,” which the examiner interprets the range of frequencies between fA and fA’ as corresponding to the claimed “predetermined range”; ¶ [0081]: “the response 300 of the circuit 100 may be measured in advance, and the operations resulting in first frequencies f.sub.A, f.sub.B, f.sub.c, f′.sub.A which correspond to different current flow I.sub.A, I.sub.B, I.sub.c in the circuit 100... determined, and stored in a memory... accessible by the controller 114,” which the examiner interprets as each of the frequencies within the range fA’-fA corresponding to a determinable current flow, such that driving the circuit within this range of frequencies tunes the DC supply current to be within the predetermined range).
Fursa, Okazaki and Abi Aoun are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of induction heating circuits employing frequency-based control of current/power delivered to a load. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the tunable oscillator and current responsive frequency tuning controller taught by Abi Aoun into the transistor switch driver circuit and controller taught by Fursa and Okazaki, in order to control the degree of inductive heating “without needing to control the voltage supplied to the circuit” (Abi Aoun, ¶ [0053]), thereby “allow[ing] for a cheaper, more space and power efficient device.” Abi Aoun, ¶ [0053].
PNG
media_image6.png
273
469
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2b of Abi Aoun
PNG
media_image7.png
569
1213
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3a of Abi Aoun
PNG
media_image8.png
302
581
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3b of Abi Aoun
Regarding claim 17, Fursa in view of Okazaki and Abi Aoun teaches the inductive heating arrangement (Fursa: 100) according to claim 16, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the tunable switching frequency is tunable in a range of ±20 percent around a center frequency.
However, in the same field of endeavor of aerosol-generating devices, Abi Aoun teaches wherein the tunable switching frequency is tunable (tune to a first frequency fA) in a range of ±20 percent around a center frequency (Abi Aoun teaches that the range of frequencies between fA and fA’ around a center frequency fr, Fig. 3b, is a result-effective variable based on the bandwidth B in Fig. 3a; construed such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to use a range of frequencies within a range of ±20 percent, which Abi Aoun teaches is dependent on the bandwidth of the response 300, which will change depending on the different temperatures or other conditions of the susceptor, resonance circuit, or the device, Figs. 3a-b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust a first frequency, as taught by Abi Aoun, for the transistor switch, as taught by Fursa, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 18, Fursa, Okazaki and Abi Aoun teaches the inductive heating arrangement (Fursa: 100) according to claim 16, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the tunable switching frequency is tunable in a range of ±5 percent around a center frequency.
However, in the same field of endeavor of aerosol-generating devices, Abi Aoun teaches wherein the tunable switching frequency is tunable (tune to a first frequency fA) in a range of ±5 percent around a center frequency (Abi Aoun teaches that the range of frequencies between fA and fA’ around a center frequency fr, Fig. 3b, is a result-effective variable based on the bandwidth B in Fig. 3a; construed such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to use a range of frequencies within a range of ±5 percent, which Abi Aoun teaches is dependent on the bandwidth of the response 300, which will change depending on the different temperatures or other conditions of the susceptor, resonance circuit, or the device, Figs. 3a-b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust a first frequency, as taught by Abi Aoun, for the transistor switch, as taught by Fursa, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 19, Fursa, Okazaki and Abi Aoun teaches the inductive heating arrangement (Fursa: 100) according to claim 16, but does not explicitly teach wherein the tunable switching frequency is tunable in a range between 5.4 MHz and 8 MHz.
However, Fursa discloses the power supply electronics comprising “[t]he DC/AC converter … configured to operate at … a frequency ranging from … about 5 MHz to 7 MHz.” Fursa, p. 16, lns. 22-25. This range substantially overlaps the claimed range of 5.4 MHz to 8 MHz. Since the disclosed range of Fursa, about 5 MHz to 7 MHz substantially overlaps the claimed range, 5.4 MHz to 8 MHz, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, Fursa as modified by Abi Aoun to incorporate a tunable oscillator (Abi Aoun: 102, “H-Bridge driver”) for generating the switching signal, as set forth the above with respect to the claim 16 rejection, would enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to select and adjust the operating frequency, including values extending to the claimed upper limit of 8 MHz, as a matter of routine engineering selection absent evidence of criticality for the specific claimed endpoints.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the tunable switching frequency of Fursa, Okazaki, and Abi Aoun to operate within the claimed range of 5.4 MHz to 8 MHz. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 20, Fursa, Okazaki and Abi Aoun teaches the inductive heating arrangement (Fursa: 100) according to claim 16, but does not explicitly teach wherein the tunable switching frequency is tunable in a range between 6.4 MHz and 7.2 MHz.
However, Fursa discloses the power supply electronics comprising “[t]he DC/AC converter … configured to operate at … a frequency ranging from … about 5 MHz to 7 MHz.” Fursa, p. 16, lns. 22-25. This range substantially overlaps the claimed range of 6.4 MHz to 7.2 MHz. Since the disclosed range of Fursa, about 5 MHz to 7 MHz substantially overlaps the claimed range, 6.4 MHz to 7.2 MHz, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, Fursa as modified by Abi Aoun to incorporate a tunable oscillator (Abi Aoun: 102, “H-Bridge driver”) for generating the switching signal, as set forth the above with respect to the claim 16 rejection, would enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to select and adjust the operating frequency, including values extending to the claimed upper limit of 7.2 MHz, as a matter of routine engineering selection absent evidence of criticality for the specific claimed endpoints.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the tunable switching frequency of Fursa, Okazaki, and Abi Aoun to operate within the claimed range of 6.4 MHz to 7.2 MHz. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 21, which is a dependent claim of claim 16, Fursa in view of Okazaki and Abi Aoun teaches the capacitor (Fursa: C2) included in the LC load network (Fursa, p. 16, lns. 28-29), but does not explicitly teach a tolerance of a capacitance of the capacitor is in a range between ±4 percent of a nominal capacitance value of the capacitor.
However, in the same field of endeavor of aerosol-generating devices, Abi Aoun teaches wherein a tolerance of a capacitance of the capacitor is in a range between ±4 percent of a nominal capacitance value of the capacitor (Abi Aoun teaches that resonant frequency is dependent on the capacitance C, which is construed as the “nominal capacitance,” and which based on the equation taught by Abi Aoun is:
C
=
1
/
(
f
r
2
L
)
;
thus, the tolerance of the Capacitance is construed as being
∆
C
=
1
/
(
∆
f
2
L
)
, where
∆
f
=
f
A
'
-
f
A
, as taught in Fig. 3b of Abi Aoun; Abi Aoun teaches that the range of frequencies between fA and fA’ around a center frequency fr, Fig. 3b, is a result-effective variable based on the bandwidth B in Fig. 3a; construed such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to use a range of capacitance within a range of ±4 percent, which Abi Aoun teaches is dependent on the bandwidth of the response 300, which will change depending on the different temperatures or other conditions of the susceptor, resonance circuit, or the device, Figs. 3a-b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to accommodate for a change in capacitance by adjusting a first frequency, as taught by Abi Aoun, for the transistor switch, as taught by Fursa, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 22, which is a dependent claim of claim 16, Fursa, Okazaki and Abi Aoun teaches the inductor (Fursa: 110) included in the LC load network (Fursa, p. 16, lns. 28-29), but does not explicitly teach a tolerance of an inductance of the inductor is in a range between ±7 percent of a nominal inductance value of the inductor.
However, in the same field of endeavor of aerosol-generating devices, Abi Aoun teaches wherein a tolerance of an inductance of the inductor is in a range between ±7 percent of a nominal inductance value of the inductor (Abi Aoun teaches that resonant frequency is dependent on the inductance L, which is construed as the “nominal inductance,” and which based on the equation taught by Abi Aoun is:
L
=
1
/
(
f
r
2
C
)
;
thus, the tolerance of the inductance is construed as being
∆
L
=
1
/
(
∆
f
2
C
)
, where
∆
f
=
f
A
'
-
f
A
, as taught in Fig. 3b of Abi Aoun; Abi Aoun teaches that the range of frequencies between fA and fA’ around a center frequency fr, Fig. 3b, is a result-effective variable based on the bandwidth B in Fig. 3a; construed such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to use a range of inductance within a range of ±7 percent, which Abi Aoun teaches is dependent on the bandwidth of the response 300, which will change depending on the different temperatures or other conditions of the susceptor, resonance circuit, or the device, Figs. 3a-b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to accommodate for a change in inductance by adjusting a first frequency, as taught by Abi Aoun, for the transistor switch, as taught by Fursa, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 23, which is a dependent claim of claim 16, Fursa, Okazaki and Abi Aoun teaches the inductor (Fursa: 110) included in the LC load network (Fursa, p. 16, lns. 28-29), but does not explicitly teach a tolerance of an inductance of the inductor is in a range between ±5 percent of a nominal inductance value of the inductor.
However, in the same field of endeavor of aerosol-generating devices, Abi Aoun teaches wherein a tolerance of an inductance of the inductor is in a range between ±5 percent of a nominal inductance value of the inductor (Abi Aoun teaches that resonant frequency is dependent on the inductance L, which is construed as the “nominal inductance,” and which based on the equation taught by Abi Aoun is:
L
=
1
/
(
f
r
2
C
)
;
thus, the tolerance of the inductance is construed as being
∆
L
=
1
/
(
∆
f
2
C
)
, where
∆
f
=
f
A
'
-
f
A
, as taught in Fig. 3b of Abi Aoun; Abi Aoun teaches that the range of frequencies between fA and fA’ around a center frequency fr, Fig. 3b, is a result-effective variable based on the bandwidth B in Fig. 3a; construed such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to use a range of inductance within a range of ±5 percent, which Abi Aoun teaches is dependent on the bandwidth of the response 300, which will change depending on the different temperatures or other conditions of the susceptor, resonance circuit, or the device, Figs. 3a-b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to accommodate for a change in inductance by adjusting a first frequency, as taught by Abi Aoun, for the transistor switch, as taught by Fursa, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 24, Fursa, Okazaki and Abi Aoun teaches the inductive heating arrangement (Fursa: 100) according to claim 16, wherein the resonant switching power amplifier is one of a class-C power amplifier, a class-D power amplifier, and a class-E power amplifier (Okazaki, ¶ [0106]; as set forth above with respect to claim 16, Okazaki teaches that the resonant switching power amplifier is a class-E amplifier, which satisfies the claimed limitation reciting the amplifier as one of a class-C, class-D, or class-E amplifier).
Regarding claim 25, which is a dependent claim of claim 16, the combination of Fursa in view of Okazaki and Abi Aoun as set forth above regarding claim 16 teaches the invention of claim 25. Specifically, Abi Aoun teaches, in Fig. 2b, the controller (114) further configured to set up the tunable oscillator (102, “H-Bridge driver”) to output a switching signal having an operating switching frequency (¶ [0059]: “controller 114 controls the H-Bridge 102... to provide an alternating current... at a given drive frequency f”) determined in response to the received current signal (¶ [0070]: voltage VIND induced in the pick-up coil 120b, indicative of the DC supply current, as set forth above with respect to claim 16), for which operating switching frequency the DC supply current drawn from the DC power source is in the predetermined range (Fig. 3b: fA’-fA; ¶ [0081]: “the controller 114 may determine one or more of the first frequencies... and control the resonance circuit 100 to be driven at this first frequency,” as set forth above with respect to claim 16).
Regarding claim 29, Fursa in view of Okazaki and Abi Aoun teaches the inductive heating arrangement (Fursa: 100) according to claim 16, further comprising a susceptor arrangement (Fursa: 4, “susceptor”), wherein the susceptor arrangement is arranged within the alternating magnetic field generated by the inductor (Fursa: 110) during operation of the heating arrangement (Fursa: 100) (Fursa, p. 32, lns. 21-23: “When an aerosol-generating article 10 is correctly located in the substrate receiving cavity 130, the susceptor4 of the article 10 is located within this fluctuating electromagnetic field,” which the examiner interprets as the susceptor arrangement being arranged within the alternating magnetic field generated by the inductor during operation of the heating arrangement).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fursa et al. (WO 2018096000) hereinafter Fursa, in view of Okazaki et al. (CN 101669281) hereinafter Okazaki, Abi Aoun et al. (US 20200037402) hereinafter Abi Aoun, and further in view of Pancholi et al. (US 20150341038) hereinafter Pancholi.
Regarding claim 26, Fursa in view of Okazaki and Abi Aoun teaches the inductive heating arrangement (Fursa: 100) according to claim 16, wherein the DC supply current (Fursa: “DC current”) for the switching signal (Fursa: “switching signal”) in operation drawn from the DC power source (Fursa: 150) is in the predetermined range (Abi Aoun, Fig. 3b: fA’-fA, as set forth above with respect to claim 16), but does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is operatively couplable to a calibration apparatus configured to determine in response to the current signal an operating switching frequency of the switching signal, and wherein the controller is further configured to communicate the current signal to the calibration apparatus and to receive a signal communicated from the calibration apparatus indicative of the determined operating switching frequency.
However, Pancholi teaches, in Fig. 1A,
a controller (122, “controller”) is operatively couplable to a calibration apparatus (102, “calibration device”) (¶ [0038]: “[e]lectronic device 120 [comprising a controller 122] may communicate with calibration device 102 via mating parts 116, 118 of a mechanical and electrical connector,” as also shown in Fig. 1A, which the examiner interprets the controller and the calibration device are operatively coupled and thus couplable) configured to determine in response to the current signal an operating switching frequency of the switching signal (¶ [0042]: “The processor 124, executing temperature sensor and oscillator readings for calibration instructions 134, may obtain readings from the temperature sensor and the oscillator to determine the sensed temperature reading from temperature sensor 136, and the frequency output from oscillator 138, respectively, and may send the readings to the calibration device 102[;] ... [i]n response to receiving the readings, the calibration control and correction factor determination instructions 110, executed by processor 106, may determine the temperature sensor correction factor and the oscillator correction factor,” which the examiner interprets, in view of the oscillator reading communicated to and processed by the calibration device 102, as corresponding to the calibration apparatus determining an operating switching frequency in response to a current signal), and
wherein the controller (122) is further configured to communicate the current signal to the calibration apparatus (102) (¶ [0042]: “The processor 124 [of the controller 122 as shown in Fig. 1A]... may obtain readings from the temperature sensor and the oscillator... and may send the readings to the calibration device 102,” which the examiner interprets as the controller communicating the current signal to the calibration apparatus) and to receive a signal communicated from the calibration apparatus (102) indicative of the determined operating switching frequency (¶ [0042]: “the calibration control and correction factor determination instructions 110... may determine the temperature sensor correction factor and the oscillator correction factor, and may send... the oscillator correction factor 144 to the electronic device 120,” which the examiner interprets as the controller receiving a signal communicated from the calibration apparatus indicative of the determined operating switching frequency).
Pancholi is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the same problem of adjusting the resonant frequency for an LC circuit. Pancholi teaches that oscillator calibration may be performed by the electronic device alone, by an external calibration device alone, or by a combination of the electronic device and an external calibration device (Pancholi, ¶ [0032]), demonstrating that the choice between on-device and external-device calibration architectures was a known, interchangeable design option in the art at the time of the invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller of Fursa in combination with Okazaki and Abi Aoun to be operatively couplable to an external calibration apparatus configured to determine the operating switching frequency in response to a communicated current signal and to communicate the determined operating switching frequency back to the controller, as taught by Pancholi, in order to apply a known technique (external calibration apparatus architecture of Pancholi) to a known device (the current responsive frequency tuning controller of Fursa, Okazaki and Abi Aoun) that was ready for improvement, thereby enabling the operating switching frequency to be determined and set using equipment external to the heating arrangement itself.
PNG
media_image9.png
664
496
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1A of Pancholi
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fursa et al. (WO 2018096000) hereinafter Fursa, in view of Okazaki et al. (CN 101669281) hereinafter Okazaki, Abi Aoun et al. (US 20200037402) hereinafter Abi Aoun, and further in view of Bowling et al. (US 20100259179) hereinafter Bowling.
Regarding claim 27, Fursa in view of Okazaki and Abi Aoun teaches the inductive heating arrangement (Fursa: 100) according to claim 16, comprising the controller (Fursa: 161, “MCU”) and the current sensor (Fursa: “current sensor”), but does not explicitly teach the controller is operatively coupled to the current sensor and the transistor switch driver circuit in a feedback-loop configuration.
However, Bowling discloses, in Fig. 10, the controller is operatively coupled to the current sensor (1016, “current sense resistor”) and the transistor switch driver circuit (510, “power switching transistor drivers”) in a feedback-loop configuration (¶ [0038]: “a sense resistor 1016 is added to the circuit... feedback control of the apparent brightness of the fluorescent lamp(s) may be implemented by measuring the current through the sense resistor 1016... fed into an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) of the digital device 502a”; ¶ [0039]: “A common technique known in the literature as PID control (proportional-integral-differential) may be implemented in software... A PID control loop may use this analog input... to adjust the lamp dimming circuit,” which the examiner interprets, in view of Bowling’s architecture comprising the PID control loop, the current sense resistor and the power switching transistor drivers (510) controlled thereby, as corresponding to the claimed controller being coupled to the current sensor and the transistor switch driver circuit in the feedback-loop configuration).
Fursa, Okazaki, Abi Aoun, and Bowling are considered to be analogous art because they are in the same field of electronic circuits employing current sensing feedback for control of switching frequency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the controller of Fursa, as modified by Abi Aoun with respect to claim 16, to be coupled to the current sensor and the transistor switch driver circuit in a feedback loop configuration, as taught by Bowling, in order to “maintain the demanded brightness regardless of temperature transitions (e.g., drift or transients).” Bowling ¶ [0040].
PNG
media_image10.png
268
526
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Fig. 10 of Bowling
Regarding claim 28, which is a dependent claim of claim 27, the combination of Fursa in view of Okazaki, Abi Aoun, and Bowling as set forth above regarding claim 27 teaches the invention of claim 28. Specifically, Abi Aoun teaches, in Fig. 2b, the controller (114) further configured to determine, in response to the received current signal, an operating switching frequency of the switching signal (¶ [0081]: “controller 114 may determine one or more of the first frequencies... and control the resonance circuit 100 to be driven at this first frequency,” as set forth above with respect to claim 16), for which in operation the DC supply current drawn from the DC power source is in the predetermined range (Fig. 3b: fA’-fA, as set forth above with respect to claim 16).
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fursa et al. (WO 2018096000) hereinafter Fursa, in view of Okazaki et al. (CN 101669281) hereinafter Okazaki, Abi Aoun et al. (US 20200037402) hereinafter Abi Aoun, and further in view of Bleloch et al. (WO 2020223350) hereinafter Bleloch.
Regarding claim 30, which is a dependent claim of claim 16, Fursa in view of Okazaki and Abi Aoun teaches a method comprising:
determining an actual DC supply current (Fursa: “DC current”) drawn from the DC power source (Fursa: 150) during operation of the heating arrangement (Fursa: 100);
determining an operating switching frequency (Fursa: p. 17, lns. 30-32) of the switching signal (Fursa, p. 22, lns. 11-13: “for supplying the switching signal”) for which in operation the actual DC supply current (Fursa: “DC current”) drawn from the DC power source (Fursa: 150) is in the predetermined range ( Abi Aoun, Fig. 3b: fA’-fA, as set forth above with respect to claim 16); and
setting up the tunable oscillator (Abi Aoun: 102, “H-Bridge driver”) to output a switching signal having the determined operating switching frequency (Abi Aoun, ¶ [0081]: “controller 114 may determine one or more of the first frequencies... and control the resonance circuit 100 to be driven at this first frequency,” as set forth above with respect to claim 16).
Fursa, Okazaki, and Abi Aoun does not explicitly teach a method of calibrating an inductive heating arrangement, wherein the method further comprises: operatively coupling the heating arrangement to a reference susceptor arrangement; and operating the heating arrangement to heat the reference susceptor arrangement.
However, Bleloch teaches a method (Fig. 3C: 300C, “method”) of calibrating an inductive heating arrangement (Fig. 1: 100, “system”; ¶ [0196]: “system 100 may be implemented as an induction heating system”) (¶ [0279]: “a method 300C for determining a characteristic... of a susceptor element... 140... in a system, such as an induction heating system”; ¶ [0301]: “control device 110 may perform a first or reference calibration based on an induction heating system (e.g., a reference induction heating system that is calibrated at a manufacturing facility)... this set of values can be used to calibrate the consumer induction heating system,” the examiner interprets Bleloch as corresponding to the claimed method of calibrating an inductive heating arrangement), wherein the method (300C) further comprises:
operatively coupling the heating arrangement (“reference induction heating circuit”) to a reference susceptor arrangement (“second susceptor element”) (¶ [0294]: “the reference calibration process may be performed using a reference induction heating circuit, which includes an induction heating circuit that has the same or similar configuration as induction heating circuit 150, and/or a second susceptor element, which includes a susceptor element that has the same or similar configuration as susceptor element 140,” which the examiner interprets the “second susceptor element” as corresponding to the claimed “reference susceptor arrangement,” and the “reference induction heating circuit” as corresponding to the claimed “heating arrangement” operatively coupled thereto; ¶ [0301]: “a reference induction heating system that is calibrated at a manufacturing facility,” which the examiner interprets as the reference susceptor arrangement being coupled to a heating arrangement specifically for factory calibration purposes); and
operating the heating arrangement (“reference induction heating circuit”) to heat the reference susceptor arrangement (“second susceptor element”) (¶ [0295]: “determining, for the first selected temperature and a first selected amount of driving current, a first response phase of reference induction heating circuit 150, wherein the first response phase is based on a magnetic property of the second susceptor element at a first driving frequency,” which the examiner interprets as the reference induction heating circuit being driven/operated while electromagnetically coupled to the second susceptor element; ¶ [0302]: “a susceptor element in system 100 that includes a reference induction heating system is maintained at a selected temperature,” which the examiner interprets as the reference susceptor arrangement being heated during operation of the heating arrangement).
Bleloch is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor of aerosol-generating devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Fursa in combination with Okazaki and Abi Aoun to be a method of calibrating the inductive heating arrangement by operatively coupling the heating arrangement to a reference susceptor arrangement and operating the heating arrangement to heat the reference susceptor arrangement, as taught by Bleloch, in order to “output a set of values” at a manufacturing facility “that may differ from a consumer induction heating system,” which set of values “can be used to calibrate the consumer induction heating system” (Bleloch, ¶ [0301]), thereby making the system “easier and cheaper to fabricate and to operate with susceptor elements that are similar, but not identical, to a reference susceptor.” Bleloch, ¶ [0364].
PNG
media_image11.png
523
684
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Bleloch
PNG
media_image12.png
523
600
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3C of Bleloch
Regarding claim 31, Fursa in view of Okazaki, Abi Aoun and Bleloch teaches the method according to claim 30, wherein the determining the operating switching frequency (Fursa: p. 17, lns. 30-32) comprises tuning the operating switching frequency of the switching signal (Fursa, p. 33, lns. 11-13: “for supplying the switching signal”) while determining the actual DC supply current (Fursa: “DC current”) drawn from the DC power source (Fursa: 150) until the actual DC supply current is in a predetermined range (Abi Aoun, Fig. 4: step 406; ¶ [0067]: “control the H-bridge 104 to scan through a range of drive frequencies f over a period of time. The electrical property of the RLC circuit 100 may be measured during the scan of drive frequencies, and hence the frequency response 300 of the RLC circuit 100 as a function of the driving frequency f may be determined”; ¶ [0096]: “controlling a drive frequency f of the RLC resonance circuit 100 to be at the determined first frequency f.sub.A, f.sub.B, f.sub.c, f′.sub.A in order to heat the susceptor 116... the controller 114 may send a control signal to the H-Bridge driver 114 to drive the RLC circuit 100 at the first frequency,” which the examiner interprets, in view of the continuous/iterative scanning of drive frequencies while measuring the electrical property (current-indicative signal) of the RLC circuit, as corresponding to tuning the operating switching frequency of the switching signal while determining the actual DC supply current until the actual DC supply current is in the predetermined range).
PNG
media_image13.png
490
653
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Abi Aoun
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sutra et al. (US 12702167), Courbat et al. (US 20210378311), Taurino et al. (CN 112367872), Korus et al. (WO 2020043900), Hwang et al. (KR 20200009993), Zhao et al. (CN 105048971).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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 F. 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.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights