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 .
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on December 23, 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. See the new interpretation of Joye, for the art rejection of claim 21, as set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/REXFORD N BARNIE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed with the Appeal Brief have been fully considered but they are only partially persuasive.
The Final Rejection did not properly address the penultimate wherein clause in claim 21 (“wherein the first communication signal is not transmitted during the second time interval”). For this reason only, prosecution is reopened to cite to Joye figure 5 (instead of figure 6). In figure 5, the first and second communication signals are separated by a power interval. Therefore, by making the boundary between the first and second time intervals be in the Window Z (the one on the right that contains the Target response [second communication signal]), the Joye first communication signal (from the Initiator/transmitter) would be entirely within the first interval. An annotated figure, to assist the Applicants in understanding this interpretation is provided in the art rejection, below.
The Applicants are also reminded of their burden under 37 CFR §1.111(b) – “The reply by the applicant [] must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action.” The Applicants did not raise the issue with the penultimate limitation of claim 21 in the reply to the Non-Final rejection (filed 9/8/25). Errors should be addressee as soon as possible, and not saved for an appeal.
The Applicants’ Brief (filed 12/10/25) includes incorrect page numbering. The pages increase to page 9 and then every subsequent page is “9”. In the Examiner’s reply, citations to the Brief will be based on the actual page number (with the Arguments, heading VII, starting on page 8).
The Examiner notes the following issues of broad claim language interpretations that have not been corrected or rebutted.
The claims recite ordinal numbered intervals (first, second) – any mention of the names of the intervals (power, communication) have been deleted by the Applicants (see amendment 5/19/25). Therefore, it is not necessary to cite to Joye’s “Window P” or “Window Z” as corresponding to any claimed interval. The numbering significantly broadens the claims. The wherein clauses passively describe which signals (power, first comm, second comm) were present in which numbered interval. Observing Joye and giving it a label of “first interval” or a “second interval” is not a modification of either the power interval (Window P) or communication interval (Window Z).
Next, the claim recites that the control unit is configure to “generate” power in the first interval but then “discontinue transfer” of power in the second interval. The claim does not recite when the control unit discontinues the generation of power. This change of language was noted in the Final Rejection and was not addressed in the Brief. The different wording (generation, transfer) indicates that they are different actions. The claim, therefore, supports the interpretation that the discontinuation of the generation of power is a different action than the discontinuation of the transferring of power. And, therefore, the claim implies the presence of power (i.e. a decay) between stopping the power generation and when the transfer (passively) discontinues.
Both of these issues were noted in the Final Rejection. Neither have been addressed or rebutted in the Brief. If the Applicants intend to maintain the same broad claim language or appeal the updated rejection, they should address these phrases. Silence regarding these issues will be interpreted as agreement.
As compared to the admitted prior art of figure 8, the Applicants’ figure 9 shows something slightly different – figure 9 keeps the power interval the same, but starts communication early. But no part of the claim clearly and explicitly recites this functionality. The claim uses broad and ambiguous language (“first interval”, “second interval”, “discontinue the transfer of the power transfer signal”) to suggest the basics of at figure 9, but while also covering the subject matter of Joye’s figure 6 (with the Muratov decay). The Applicants cannot maintain broad language in the claim and then demand a narrow reading of the prior art. It is the Applicants’ burden to amend the claim to more clearly define their improvement in a way that unambiguously distinguishes over Joye.
The last seven wherein clauses have written description support in figure 9. That is not the issue. The rejection is based on the interpretation that the broad language of the claim does not just cover figure 9 – it includes Joye’s figures 5 and 6. During prosecution, the applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend ambiguous claims to clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. The claim places the public on notice of the scope of the patentee’s right to exclude.” See, e.g. Johnson & Johnson Assoc. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co., 285 F.3d 1046, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2002)(en banc). MPEP §2173.02
Turning to the Brief:
The Applicants’ first argument heading is incorrect and illustrates how the Applicants have misunderstood the art rejection. The art rejection did not “redefine[] the end of Joye’s power transfer window P” (Brief, page 8). The Applicants make several comments about modifying Joye’s power/communication windows in pages 8-9 – none of these reflect the art rejection. For example, in reference to the annotated Joye figure 6, the Applicants, “As can be seen, the Examiner extends the end of Joye’s power transfer time interval…” (Brief, page 9, lines 1-2). This is incorrect. Joye’s existing windows (P, Z) were left alone. Adding different intervals (first, second) is not a modification of the existing intervals (P, Z). Using supporting documentation to show that Joye’s resonant circuit will decay (which the Applicants admit to) is not a modification of the existing intervals (P, Z). At no point did the Office extend, shorten, or otherwise modify Window P or Window Z.
The Applicants contend that, even with Joye’s decay, the skilled artisan “would not initiate communications until the decaying signal as no longer transferring power” (Brief, page 10). First, the decay is the inherent/obvious result of the reactive components of the resonant circuit. Inductors and capacitors store energy for release later – it’s part of their inherent construction. This happens in Joye whether the author recognizes it or not. So, if the disclosed transmitter worked to their satisfaction, then the skilled artisan would have understood that Joye did not have a problem with any power decay after Window P. The combination does not affect the Joye timing. Therefore, the decay causes power transfer (again, not power “generation”) to overlap with the first communication signa. Furthermore, Joye discloses that communication begins when power is below a threshold, not when it is at zero (par 251; see also the Examiner’s Response to Arguments, 10/3/25, page 2). The art rejection clearly shows that the resonant decay is part of the Joye transmitter, whether the author recognized so or not.
Second, the Applicants are doing exactly this – they are communicating during a decay (see their figure 9, power sloping down as communication starts). The Applicants cannot both argue that no one would ever try it, but then claim that same feature. The Applicants’ argument is not an acceptable secondary consideration argument (that people have tried and failed, or that there is no evidence of anyone trying) – they are arguing that no one would even consider it. No supporting documentation has been provided to support this position.
The Office has met the standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) to show that Joye has specific power and communication timing and that Joye’s power transfer would come with a decay. Thus, the evidence supports the position of unintended power transfer extending into window Z. This creates the boundary for the first/second intervals (again, leaving windows P and Z alone).
The Applicants then admit the “resonant circuits exhibit a decay period”, but then suggest that “techniques are commonly available to avoid any ill-effects caused by such a decay.” (Brief, page 10). But Joye does not disclose any of these techniques. It is, therefore, not proper for the Applicants to add them. That Applicants want to further modify Joye (without any supporting evidence) to remove this decay does not rebut the interpretation that the delay exists in the first place. There is no legal or regulatory basis for the Applicants to demand that a feature that is shown to be present in the prior art must be removed by uncited “techniques”. The art rejection relies on Muratov to show that the decay would exist in Joye’s power transmission regardless of whether or not the author recognized its presence. The analysis ends there – there is no requirement that the art rejection also remove this inherent/obvious (and admittedly present) decay.
What Muratov does to and with its decay is irrelevant (Brief, page 11). Muratov is relied on for its teaching that the Joye resonant circuit would have a decay (any reactive component would have one). This teaching is separate from Muratov’s intention to create a bigger one or to use if for foreign object detection.
The Applicants’ contention that Muratov does not disclose communicating during the decay is irrelevant and is a piecemeal analysis of the combination. Muratov supports the interpretation that Joye has a decay and, in Joye, the decaying power and outgoing first communication signal would overlap. As a secondary reference, Muratov is not required to disclose communication.
In their summary, the Applicant state “Examiner’s redefinition of Joye’s FIG. 6” and “the Examiner has not identified an apparent reason that one of skill in the art would initiate communications as illustrated in [annotated] FIG. 6.” (Brief, page 11). First, the art rejection did not “redefine” Joye. It simply analyzed (with the decay that the Applicants agree is present) where one could present labels for “first interval” and “second interval”. A timeline label is not a modification. Second, no structure or underlying functionality is being changed in Joye – it’s just numbering in a timeline. The Joye timing of power and communication are left alone – nothing has been changed in Window P or Z. Joye already discloses when and why it initiates its first communication signal. The Office is not required to provide support for a modification that isn’t happening.
The Second heading (Brief, page 12) applies the same arguments to the other claims. No new arguments are presented here that have not already been addressed and rebutted.
On page 13, the Applicants correctly indicate that Joye does not disclose that the first communication signal is not transmitted during the second time interval. For this reason, the art rejection of claim 21 is updated to cite to Joye figure 5 (instead of 6).
Regarding claim 13 (Brief, page 14), Claim 1 explicitly recites “wherein the controller circuit is arranged to control the driver circuit to discontinue transfer of the power transfer signal during the second time interval”. Because the claims recite that the power transfer continues into the second interval, the “power down” cannot be interpreted as power reducing to zero. For the purpose of the art rejection of claim 13, the “power down” will be interpreted as the beginning of the Joye decay (not its entire length). In other words, it is the discontinuation of the generation of power that is otherwise missing in claim 1.
The Examiner suggests that the Applicants reintroduce the named intervals (power, communication) and then clearly present the order of control steps (what is created, what is stopped) within each interval. The same terminology should be used for starting and stopping the same action (i.e. “start generating power” and its counterpart “discontinue generating power”). And the control steps should be presented in order with active verb language (without passive language, as is replete in the wherein clauses). This is notably exhibited by method claim 21. The claim relies on wherein clauses with passively language to refer to what happened in prior steps (“is transmitted”, “is discontinued”). As a method claim, it should unambiguously recite the functionality (in order) with active verbs (“transmit”, “discontinue”, etc.) that creates the figure 9 timeline.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-13, 15-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joye (US 2016/0156232) in view of Muratov (US 2017/0117755) and Joye (“Joye II”; US 2016/0181818).
With respect to claim 1, Joye discloses a power transmitter (fig 3, 5-6, 12; par 122-135, 151-160, 244-256) comprising:
an output circuit comprising a transmitter coil (103) arranged to generate a power transfer signal in response to a drive signal;
a driver circuit (301; par 152-153) arranged to generate the drive signal;
a communicator circuit (305; par 128-133, 154, 156-159, 170-205), wherein the communication circuit is configured to transmit a first communication signal (par 127) to a power receiver and to receive a second communication signal using load modulation (par 123) from the power receiver;
a controller circuit (303 and 309), wherein:
the controller circuit is arranged to control the driver circuit (see arrow between 303 and 301; par 153) and the communicator circuit (see arrow between 303 and 305) so as to control power transfer and communication with the power receiver in a repeating time frame (see fig 5-6 and additional citations, below),
the repeating time frame comprises at least a first time interval and a second time interval (see fig 6 and the annotated version of figure 6, below; par 135);
the drive circuit is arranged to generate the power transfer signal to transfer power to the power receiver during the first time interval (par 135, 173 – see annotated figure, below);
the controller circuit is arranged to control the communication circuit to transmit the first communication signal during the first time inverter (par 130; and the annotated figure, below);
the controller circuit is arranged to control the driver circuit to discontinue transfer of the power transfer signal during the second time interval (see annotated figure below; par 171, 176, 250-252 – when modified by Muratov, Joye’s power transfer signal continues to be transferred beyond the boundary of Window P – this is not a modification of Window P);
the controller circuit is arranged to control the communicator circuit to discontinue transmission of the first communication signal during the second time interval (see annotated figure, below); and
the communication circuit is arranged to receive the second communication signal from the power receiver during the second time interval (fig 6, communication on “target” line; par 176, 179).
Joye discloses a wireless power transmitter that includes a controller for operating the transmitter with repeating first/second time intervals. During the first interval, power and outgoing communication are started/generated/transmitted. During the second interval, power transfer and outgoing communication are discontinued. This is exemplified in the analysis of Muratov and the annotated figure, below.
Joye refers to power (Window P) and communication (Window Z) intervals. Analyzing Joye with numbered intervals (first, second) is not a modification of the reference. It is simply a grouping of actions that the reference already takes. No structural or functional modifications are necessary to examine how Joye can be grouped into “first” and “second” intervals.
The Examiner notes that the claim defines discontinuation of the power transfer signal and does not explicitly recite when the generation is discontinued. Joye’s power transfer signal is generated in the “first” time interval. This generation is stopped at the end of the first time interval (this does not correspond to any claimed limitation). And, then, obvious energy storage causes the Joye resonant circuit to decay over time – thereby causing the “transfer” of the power transfer signal to continue into the “second” time interval. Joye paragraphs 250-252 discloses that the termination/discontinuation of power occurs while power is still being applied to the resonant circuit (it does not have to occur at zero crossing, which is just one different example – see par 253-256). Thus, the Joye resonant components, being reactive elements (capacitor, inductor) will obviously still contain stored energy when the incoming power is disconnected.
Joye does not expressly disclose this decay to explicitly show that the power transfer signal continues into the “second” time interval (figures 5 and 6 both show how the power transfer signal ends at the boundary of Window Z). Muratov discloses a wireless power transmitting resonator (fig 1, 3-4), wherein energy is stored in the resonator when power transmission is stopped and this energy decays over time (fig 6-13; abstract, par 11, 36, 46-59).
Muratov’s decays is either inherent or would obviously exist in Joye (even if the author did not recognize its effects). The Applicants agree that Joye would have a decay, as they state, “the decay, if any, would be from a value near the zero crossing, and thus of very short duration” (Remarks, 9/8/25, page 11, last 2 lines – a similar admission was made in the Brief, 12/10/25, see last paragraph of page 10). The Examiner notes that the Joye power transfer signal cutoff does not have to be “near” the zero cross and just has to be “below a threshold” (par 251). The Examiner’s interpretation is that the Joye resonant circuit has more energy storage than what the Applicants are proposing. Even with the Applicants’ “near the zero crossing” interpretation, they still admit that there is a “duration” to the Joye decay. This duration, even if “small”, would obviously extend into the second time interval – thereby satisfying the language of the claim (third to last wherein clause).
Joye and Muratov are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transmitters with a power transfer interval. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to that Joye’s power transfer interval does not abruptly end and decays over time, as taught by Muratov. The motivation for doing so would have been because the Joye resonator (inductor and capacitor) contains reactive energy storage elements and are known to have decay times to fully discharge after power is removed.
When combined, the Joye power transfer interval would not end in a straight vertical line (as shown in figures 5-6). Instead, the power signal would decay over time, exhibiting a shape more similar to a downward sloping ramp. Because of this decay, there would still be power transfer (through energy decay) when the communication is started (in window Z).
PNG
media_image1.png
391
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As illustrated above, the Joye (modified or inherently) power transfer signal continues to decay and be “transferred” beyond the boundary of Window P to overlap with some of the outgoing “first” communication signal. By drawing a vertical line to represent the boundary between the first/second intervals, the figure clearly shows how Joye’s power and outgoing communication both start in the first interval and are discontinued in the second interval. The addition of a line to separate the first/second intervals is not a modification of either the power interval (Window P) or communication interval (Window Z).
As discussed above, the claim uses different terminology for how the power transfer signal begins and ends. The claim recites that the controller is “arranged to generate the power transfer signal” and then recites “arranged to [] discontinue transfer of the power transfer signal”. This implies that power is continued to be “transferred” after the power “generation” is stopped – which is exactly what is shown by Joye (with Muratov). As shown above, inherent or obvious decay means the Joye power transfer signal extends into Window Z. And the amended numbering of the time intervals are just names – they are not further narrowing for any implied functionality (e.g. as “power” interval implies the presence of power). The beginning/end of each time interval is defined by the wherein clauses that passive refer to what happened in the intervals (not active control functions).
Joye does not expressly disclose its communicator circuit is arranged to use “amplitude modulation” for outgoing “first” communication signals (see, for example, par 159 where Joye mentions transmitter to receiver NFC communication, but does not mention the type of modulation). Joye II discloses a power transmitter (fig 3; par -133-172) comprising:
an output circuit comprising a transmitter coil (103) arranged to generate a power transfer signal in response to a drive signal applied to the output circuit;
a driver circuit (301) arranged to generate the drive signal;
a communicator circuit (305), wherein
the communicator circuit is arranged to transmit messages to a power receiver using amplitude modulation (par 169);
the communication circuit is to receive messages from the power receiving using load modulation (par 169).
Joye and Joye II are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transfer systems with NFC communication. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Joye to include the “amplitude modulation”, as taught by Joye II. The motivation for doing so would have been to “fill in the blanks” in the Joye disclosure and use a known and proven communication method, with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claim 2, Joye discloses the controller circuit is arranged to change a transmission time of the first communication signal in response to a timing property of the second time interval (par 181-182).
With respect to claim 4, Joye discloses the controller circuit is arranged to change at least one of the transmission time of the first communication signal and a timing property of the second time interval in response to a property of the first communication signal (par 181-182; see explanation after art rejection of claim 5).
With respect to claim 5, Joye discloses the property of the first communication signal is at least one of a length of the first communication signal (yes) and a property of at least one response message to the first communication signal.
Joye discloses that the first communication signal is sent by modulating it onto outgoing wireless power transmission. As there is no active generation (inversion, etc.) for wireless power transmission during the communication interval (Window Z), the first communication signal would be cut off if its transmission were started too late. Thus, the Joye first communication signal’s timing is obviously a function of its length.
With respect to claim 3, Joye discloses the controller circuit is arranged to change a timing property of the second time interval (par 181-182; provides the possible timing properties that the synchronizer circuit can select from).
With respect to claim 6, Joye discloses the timing property is a duration of the second time interval (par 181-182, the duration is between 5ms and 200ms).
With respect to claim 7, Joye discloses the controller circuit is arranged to change the duration of the second time interval in response to a communication rate of the first communication signal and the response message (see art rejection of claim 5). As discussed above, the first communication signal cannot be sent during the communication interval. Thus, the duration of the second time interval is “in response to” the first message (and vice versa).
With respect to claim 8, Joye discloses the controller circuit is arranged to change the timing property in response to a property of the response message (see art rejection of claim 5). Joye’s first message is communicated by modulating the outgoing wireless power signal. This indicates that its response also uses the wireless power signal (through load modulation). Thus, a property (length) of the response defines how long the power transfer interval needs to continue before the system can transition to the communication interval (where there is no power transmission).
. With respect to claim 9, Joye discloses a varying power supply signal is supplied to the driver circuit (par 114), and wherein the controller circuit is arranged to change the timing property in response to a variation in the varying power supply signal (par 38).
Joye discloses a varying transmission frequency – this indicates the driver circuit is supplied with a varying power supply signal. The frequency of the communication interval needs to be at least twice that of the transmission frequency. Thus, the Joye controller is arranged to change the timing property of the communication interval in response to the varying power supply signal (transmission frequency).
With respect to claim 10, Joye discloses the controller circuit is arranged to align a center of the second time interval with a time interval corresponding to a signal minimum for the varying power supply signal (par 38, 182). Joye discloses the controller circuit is arranged to set the start and length of the communication interval. This is interpreted as obviously including values that align it (its beginning, its center, its end) to “a time interval corresponding to” a signal minimum.
The claim does not recite any sensors or measurement devices so that the controller circuit would know or have any awareness of specific values to which it needs to adjust the communication interval timing. Thus, the claim is interpreted as including a coincidental timing.
Further, the claim does not recite what type of relationship is included in claim. The center of the communication interval is aligned with “a time interval”. This time interval is not defined in the claim. For the purpose of the art rejection, any time that satisfies the stated alignment in Joye is interpreted as the “a time interval”. Additional support for this interpretation can be found in that the time interval is only broadly “corresponding to” a signal minimum (another unclearly defined time). The basis for where to define the time interval is not clearly set in the claim. The repeated modifies of this time interval broadens the claim to the point where Joye can be observed and the skilled artisan can calculate a “time interval” to satisfy the recited limitations.
With respect to claim 11, Joye discloses the second time interval is between 5ms and 200ms (par 182). Joye does not expressly disclose a second time interval of less than 1 ms. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Joye to further reduce its timing interval. The motivation for doing so would have been to change the duty cycle and provide more power. Joye (par 180) sets forth various relationships between the length of time of power and communication intervals. Based on this, the skilled artisan would have: a) recognized that other values are also possible; and b) understood that the length of time of the second time interval is a result effective variable. MPEP §2144.05. Through routine experimentation, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to select a second time interval of less than 1ms. Changing the length of time of an interval does not change any of the Joye structure. It also produces unexpected and predictable results.
With respect to claim 12, Joye discloses the controller circuit is arranged to terminate the second time interval in response to a detection of an end of the response message (see fig 5-6; the communication interval “Z” ends/terminals after the a each response message (shown on the “target” line).
With respect to claim 13, Joye, as modified by Muratov, discloses:
wherein the power transfer time interval comprises a power down interval (the decay slope taught by Muratov),
wherein the power down interval occurs prior to the second time interval (see annotated figure in the art rejection of claim 1),
wherein the controller circuit is arranged to control the power transmitter to transmit the first communication signal during a portion of the power down interval (see annotated figure, above).
As discussed above, the Muratov decay (figs 6-13) creates a “power down interval” in Joye. This would result in figures 5-6 having a gradual sloping end to the power intervals, instead of a defined vertical line. This power down interval would be long enough to overlap with at least part of the first communication signal.
With respect to claims 21 and 15-19, Joye, Muratov and Joye II combine to disclose the apparatus necessary to complete the recited method steps, and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejections of claims 1-6, respectively. For claim 21, the penultimate wherein clauses results in the need for a slightly different interpretation of Joye. For the purpose of the art rejection of claim 21 (and its dependents), the Office relies on figure 5, which separates the first communication signal (outgoing from the transmitter/initiator) and second communication signal (received from a receiver/target).
PNG
media_image2.png
350
792
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As can be seen in the figure, adding two numbered intervals is not a modification of the reference or either power (P) or communication (Z) windows. The annotated figure clearly shows how: 1) the power transfer signal is generated in the first interval and its transfer is discontinued in the second interval (again, the claim is silent as to when the method stops generating the power transfer signal); 2) the first communication signal (sent by the transmitter/initiator) is entirely within the first interval; and 3) the second communication signal (sent by the receiver/target) is received in the second interval. At least part of it is received in the second interval – the claim language is ambiguous. Further, the timing of any signal reception would be a function of the unclaimed receiver – it wouldn’t further narrow the structure or functionality of the transmitter. How the rest of the art rejection of claim 21 is mapped to the limitations of claim 1 is unaffected by the reliance on figure 5 instead of figure 6.
Regarding claim 22, the Joye functionality and method steps are autonomous, satisfying the limitation of a computer program stored in memory that is to be executed by a processor. The combination of references combine to teach the recited functionality, and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 1. While claim 22 is written in terms of functionality, it mirrors claim 1 (not claim 22 with its penultimate wherein).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADI AMRANY whose telephone number is (571)272-0415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-7pm.
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, Rex Barnie can be reached at 5712722800 x36. 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.
/ADI AMRANY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836