DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claims 1-4 and 7-12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Cross (US 6,877,248).
As for claim 1, Cross shows an apparatus comprising: a housing (fig. 1); a receptacle that is mounted within the housing, wherein the receptacle is capable of containing a wet laundry load (45, fig. 2); a motor that is coupled to the receptacle that is operable to rotate the receptacle (45, 50, fig. 2, motor needed to turn drum); a control that is operable to commence rotation of the receptacle by the motor while a wet laundry load is inside the receptacle (70, 3:54); one or more ultraviolet light assemblies comprising one or more ultraviolet light sources, wherein: the one or more ultraviolet light assemblies are disposed within the housing (55, fig. 2), the apparatus is operable to dry the wet laundry load using the one or more ultraviolet light assemblies, which emit ultraviolet radiation from the one or more ultraviolet light assemblies onto the wet laundry load while the receptacle is rotating, resulting in the drying of the wet laundry load (55, 3:29-36, Cross discloses 4 UV lights, which according to applicant’s specification has a drying effect on laundry).
As for claim 2, Cross shows the one or more ultraviolet light assemblies are positioned outside the receptacle, and wherein the ultraviolet radiation emitted by the one or more light assemblies pass through one or more ultraviolet permeable portions of the receptacle to reach the wet laundry load (75, fig. 3, 3:67-4:1-4).
As for claim 3, Cross shows at least one of the ultraviolet light assemblies are disposed within the interior portion of the receptacle (3:31-36. A light mounted to the back of a dryer sticks into the drum).
As for claim 4, cross shows the one or more ultraviolet assemblies are attached to an interior surface of the receptacle and situated behind a protective cover (3:31-36. A light mounted to the back of a dryer sticks into the drum and would include the structure disclosed in fig. 3, 55, 75).
As for claim 7, Cross shows the control comprises one or more of a knob and a button (20, fig. 1).
As for claim 8, Cross shows the control can be used to set an amount of time that the apparatus would be in operation (5:42-44).
As for claim 9, Cross shows the control can be used to control the intensity of the emitted ultraviolet radiation (4:50-52, intensity controlled through power switch).
As for claim 10, Cross shows an apparatus comprising: a housing (fig. 1); a receptacle that is mounted within the housing, wherein the receptacle is capable of receiving and holding a laundry load (45, fig. 2); a motor that rotates the receptacle (45, 50, fig. 2, motor needed to turn drum); and one or more ultraviolet light assemblies disposed within the housing, wherein: the one or more ultraviolet light assemblies comprise one or more ultraviolet light sources (55, fig. 2), the apparatus is operable to dry the laundry load using the one or more ultraviolet light assemblies, which, when activated, emit ultraviolet radiation onto the laundry load, during one or more drying cycles in which the receptacle is being rotated by the motor, the one or more drying cycles are defined by an amount of time that elapses while the receptacle is rotating and ultraviolet light assemblies are activated, wherein the laundry load is dried from evaporation of water from the laundry load during the one or more drying cycles (55, 3:29-36, Cross discloses 4 UV lights, which according to applicant’s specification has a drying effect on laundry), and the apparatus ceases operation upon reaching the end of the one or more drying cycles (4:43-49).
As for claim 11, Cross shows the one or more ultraviolet light assemblies are positioned outside an outer perimeter of the receptacle; and the ultraviolet radiation emitted by the one or more ultraviolet light assemblies passes onto the laundry load through one or more UV-permeable portions of the receptacle (55, 75, fig. 3, 3:67-4:1-4).
As for claim 12, Cross shows the apparatus is operable to interrupt the one or more drying cycles by turning off the one or more ultraviolet light assemblies upon detection of an access door of the apparatus being open (4:55-58).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cross as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Moon (US 2008/0289212).
As for claims 5 and 6, Cross discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing an interior surface of the receptacle comprises a reflective material that serves to re-direct the ultraviolet radiation emitted by the ultraviolet light assembly; wherein the interior surface of the receptacle can be one or more of: mirrored, coated with a reflective material, and comprised of a polished metal. However, the odds are overwhelming high that the receptacle of Cross was made of metal like virtually all dryer drums. However Moon teaches an interior surface of the receptacle comprises a reflective material that serves to re-direct the ultraviolet radiation emitted by the ultraviolet light assembly [0024]; wherein the interior surface of the receptacle can be one or more of: mirrored, coated with a reflective material, and comprised of a polished metal [0024] in order to in order to provide a surface with high thermal capacity. Cross would benefit equally from providing a surface with high thermal capacity. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Cross with an interior surface of the receptacle comprises a reflective material that serves to re-direct the ultraviolet radiation emitted by the ultraviolet light assembly as taught by Moon in order to provide a surface with high thermal capacity.
Claim 13 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cross as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Aldridge (US 2008/0115541).
Cross discloses the apparatus is operable to interrupt the one or more drying cycles by turning off the one or more ultraviolet light assemblies (4:43-48) and the claimed invention except for the apparatus is operable to interrupt the one or more drying cycles upon detection of a child or animal inside the drum. Aldridge teaches the apparatus is operable to interrupt the one or more drying cycles upon detection of a child or animal inside the drum [0039] in order to protect a human from being injured by the drying cycle. Cross would benefit equally from protecting a human from being injured by the drying cycle. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Cross with the apparatus is operable to interrupt the one or more drying cycles upon detection of a child or animal inside the drum as taught by Aldridge in order to protect a human from being injured by the drying cycle.
Claim 14 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cross as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Pomerantz (US 2011/0025454).
Cross discloses the claimed invention except for the detection of the child or animal inside the drum is based on detection of sound patterns by an audio sensor. Pomerantz teaches the detection of the child or animal inside the drum is based on detection of sound patterns by an audio sensor (abstract) in order to increase user safety in the event of an emergency. Cross would benefit equally from increasing user safety in the event of an emergency. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Cross with the detection of the child or animal inside the drum is based on detection of sound patterns by an audio sensor as taught by Pomerantz in order to increase user safety in the event of an emergency.
Claim 15 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cross in view of Kim (US 2009/0217547)
As for claim 15, Cross discloses a clothes dryer apparatus comprising: a housing (fig. 1); a receptacle that is mounted within the housing, wherein the receptacle is capable of receiving and holding a laundry load (45, fig. 2); a control that controls the operation of the clothes dryer apparatus (20, 30, 35, 40, fig. 1), wherein the control is responsive to a user input to vary parameters associated with operation of the clothes dryer apparatus (20, 30, 35, 40, fig. 1); a motor that rotates the receptacle (45, 50, fig. 2, motor needed to turn drum); and one or more ultraviolet light assemblies comprising one or more ultraviolet light sources, wherein: the one or more ultraviolet light assemblies are disposed within and detachably mounted within the housing (5:55-58, lights removable for replacement), wherein: the clothes dryer apparatus, when in operation, dries clothes by using one or more ultraviolet light assemblies that, when activated, emit ultraviolet radiation onto the laundry load (55, 3:29-36, Cross discloses 4 UV lights, which according to applicant’s specification has a drying effect on laundry), and by using one or more reflective components that re-direct the emitted ultraviolet radiation onto the laundry load while the receptacle containing the laundry load is rotating (60, fig. 1, 3:31), and at least some of the water evaporated from the laundry load exits the clothes dryer apparatus through vent holes (5:34, examiner notes that all home laundry dryers include a plurality of vent holes to retain the articles of clothing while letting exhaust vapor to escape as illustrated by Kim 23, fig. 1).
Cross discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing the receptacle comprises one or more fins attached to an interior surface of the receptacle; and a plurality of vent holes. Kim teaches the receptacle comprises one or more fins attached to an interior surface of the receptacle (21, 20, fig. 1, [0027]), a plurality of vent holes (23, fig. 1) in order to raise and drop articles of laundry, and allow water vapor to escape for more efficient drying. Cross would benefit equally from raising and dropping articles of laundry, and allowing water vapor to escape for more efficient drying. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Cross with the receptacle comprises one or more fins attached to an interior surface of the receptacle as taught by Kim in order to raise and drop articles of laundry, and allow water vapor to escape for more efficient drying.
As for claim 16, Cross discloses the one or more ultraviolet light assemblies are attached to one or more of: an interior wall of the housing, an interior ceiling of the housing, an interior floor of the housing, and a side of the housing behind the rear of the receptacle (55, fig, 2, an interior wall of the housing), and wherein the ultraviolet radiation emitted by the one or more ultraviolet light assemblies passes onto the laundry load through one or more UV-permeable portions of the receptacle (75, fig. 3, 3:67-4:1-4).
As for claim 17, Cross discloses the one or more ultraviolet light sources are detachably mounted (5:55-58, lights removable for replacement).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cross in view of Kim as to claim 15 above and further in view of Kim (KR20110039985A), hereinafter Kim ‘985.
Cross discloses the claimed invention except for a transparent access door allows a viewer to see inside the clothes dryer apparatus, wherein the transparent access door comprises ultraviolet light blocking characteristics; wherein a portion of the housing is transparent and comprises ultraviolet light blocking characteristics, which allows viewing of the operation of the device without causing harm to a viewer's eyes. Kim ‘985 teaches a transparent access door allows a viewer to see inside the clothes dryer apparatus (p. 5, second full paragraph), wherein the transparent access door comprises ultraviolet light blocking characteristics (p. 5, second full paragraph); wherein a portion of the housing is transparent (p. 5, second full paragraph) and comprises ultraviolet light blocking characteristics, which allows viewing of the operation of the device without causing harm to a viewer's eyes (p. 5, second full paragraph) in order to allow a user to view the inside of the drum and inhibit the amount of UV light that can escape through the door. Cross would benefit equally from allowing a user to view the inside of the drum and inhibiting the amount of UV light that can escape through the door. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Cross with a transparent access door allows a viewer to see inside the clothes dryer apparatus, wherein the transparent access door comprises ultraviolet light blocking characteristics; wherein a portion of the housing is transparent and comprises ultraviolet light blocking characteristics, which allows viewing of the operation of the device without causing harm to a viewer's eyes as taught by Kim ‘985 in order to allow a user to view the inside of the drum and inhibit the amount of UV light that can escape through the door.
Claim 20 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cross in view of Kim, and Kim ‘985 as to claim 19 above and further in view of Ripley (US 2009/0126417).
Cross discloses the claimed invention except for the portion comprises a window comprising a first pane and a second pane, and wherein the ultraviolet light blocking film is applied to the inner sides of the first pane and the second pane, such that the ultraviolet light blocking film is positioned between the first pane and the second pane. Ripley teaches a first pane and a second pane [0026] in order to improve insulation for less heat wasted through the door. Cross would benefit equally from improving insulation for less heat wasted through the door. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Cross with a first pane and a second pane as taught by Ripley in order to improve insulation for less heat wasted through the door.
The combination of Cross and Ripley discloses or teaches the claimed invention except for the ultraviolet light blocking film is applied to the inner sides of the first pane and the second pane, such that the ultraviolet light blocking film is positioned between the first pane and the second pane. Kim ‘985 teaches the ultraviolet light blocking film is applied to the inner sides of the first pane (p. 5, second full paragraph) and the second pane, such that the ultraviolet light blocking film is positioned between the first pane and the second pane (the teaching of Kim ‘985 and Ripley combined would position the ultraviolet light blocking film is positioned between the first pane and the second pane) in order to allow a user to view the inside of the drum and inhibit the amount of UV light that can escape through the door. The combination of Cross and Ripley would benefit equally from allowing a user to view the inside of the drum and inhibit the amount of UV light that can escape through the door. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Cross with the ultraviolet light blocking film is applied to the inner sides of the first pane and the second pane, such that the ultraviolet light blocking film is positioned between the first pane and the second pane as taught by Kim ‘985 in order to allow a user to view the inside of the drum and inhibit the amount of UV light that can escape through the door.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent Nos. US 8,881,422, US 10,415,176, US 11,149,378 and US 11,885,064 in view of Yoon (US 2009/0133281). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they share the same essential disclosure.
As to claims 1-9, the table below indicates the shared claim elements between this application and the identified patents. As to the missing elements of a motor to rotate the receptacle and a control that is operable to commence rotation of the receptacle see the obviousness analysis below the table below, Yoon teaches a motor to rotate the receptacle (claim 3) and a control that is operable to commence rotation of the receptacle (claim 1) in order to provide the ability to signal a motor to operate the laundry dryer. U.S. Patent Nos. US 8,881,422, US 10,415,176, US 11,149,378 and US 11,885,064 would benefit equally from providing the ability to signal a motor to operate the laundry dryer. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryers as disclosed by U.S. Patent Nos. US 8,881,422, US 10,415,176, US 11,149,378 and US 11,885,064 with a motor to rotate the receptacle and a control that is operable to commence rotation of the receptacle as taught by Yoon in order to provide the ability to signal a motor to operate the laundry dryer.
18424840, claim 1
8881422
10415176
11149378
11885064
a housing
Line 2
Line 2
Line 2
Line 2
a receptacle that is mounted within housing capable of containing wet laundry
Lines 3-6
Line 3
Line 3
Line 3
a motor to rotate the receptacle
Lines 21-22
Lines 7-8
a control that operable to commence rotation of the receptacle
one or more ultraviolet light assemblies are disposed within the housing
Line 8
Line 9
Line 9
Line 8
apparatus is operable to dry the wet laundry load using the one or more ultraviolet light assemblies
Lines 9-17
Lines 10-12
Lines 9-13
Lines 8-14
As to claims 10-14, the table below indicates the shared claim elements between this application and the identified patents. As to the missing elements of one or more drying cycles are defined by an amount of time that elapses while the receptacle is rotating and ultraviolet light assemblies are activated; the apparatus ceases operation upon reaching the end of the one or more drying cycles: Choi teaches one or more drying cycles are defined by an amount of time that elapses while the receptacle is rotating and ultraviolet light assemblies are activated (claim 13); the apparatus ceases operation upon reaching the end of the one or more drying cycles (claim 13) in order to control the drying time of the laundry load. U.S. Patent Nos. US 8,881,422, US 10,415,176, US 11,149,378 and US 11,885,064 would benefit equally from controlling the drying time of the laundry load. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryers as disclosed by U.S. Patent Nos. US 8,881,422, US 10,415,176, US 11,149,378 and US 11,885,064 with one or more drying cycles are defined by an amount of time that elapses while the receptacle is rotating and ultraviolet light assemblies are activated; the apparatus ceases operation upon reaching the end of the one or more drying cycles as taught by Choi in order to control the drying time of the laundry load.
18424840, claim 10
8881422
10415176
11149378
11885064
a housing
Line 2
Line 2
Line 2
Line 2
a receptacle that is mounted within housing capable of containing wet laundry
Lines 3-6
Line 3
Line 3
Line 3
a motor to rotate the receptacle
Lines 21-22
Lines 7-8
one or more ultraviolet light assemblies are disposed within the housing
Line 8
Line 9
Line 9
Line 8
apparatus is operable to dry the wet laundry load using the one or more ultraviolet light assemblies
Lines 9-17
Lines 10-12
Lines 9-13
Lines 8-14
one or more drying cycles are defined by an amount of time that elapses while the receptacle is rotating and ultraviolet light assemblies are activated
the apparatus ceases operation upon reaching the end of the one or more drying cycles
As to claims 15-20, the table below indicates the shared claim elements between this application and the identified patents. As to the missing elements of a control that controls the operation of the clothes dryer apparatus; the one or more ultraviolet light assemblies are disposed within and detachably mounted within the housing; the one or more ultraviolet light assemblies are disposed within and detachably mounted within the housing; one or more reflective components that re-direct the emitted ultraviolet radiation onto the laundry load while the receptacle containing the laundry load is rotating; at least some of the water evaporated from the laundry load exits the clothes dryer apparatus through vent holes; Cross teaches a control that controls the operation of the clothes dryer apparatus (20, 30, 35, 40, fig. 1); the one or more ultraviolet light assemblies are disposed within and detachably mounted within the housing (5:55-58, lights removable for replacement); the one or more ultraviolet light assemblies are disposed within and detachably mounted within the housing (55, 10, fig. 2); one or more reflective components that re-direct the emitted ultraviolet radiation onto the laundry load while the receptacle containing the laundry load is rotating (65,fig. 2); at least some of the water evaporated from the laundry load exits the clothes dryer apparatus through vent holes (5:34) in order to treat and condition a load of laundry. U.S. Patent Nos. US 8,881,422, US 10,415,176, US 11,149,378 and US 11,885,064 would benefit equally from treating and condition a load of laundry. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryers as disclosed by U.S. Patent Nos. US 8,881,422, US 10,415,176, US 11,149,378 and US 11,885,064 with a control that controls the operation of the clothes dryer apparatus; the one or more ultraviolet light assemblies are disposed within and detachably mounted within the housing; the one or more ultraviolet light assemblies are disposed within and detachably mounted within the housing; one or more reflective components that re-direct the emitted ultraviolet radiation onto the laundry load while the receptacle containing the laundry load is rotating; at least some of the water evaporated from the laundry load exits the clothes dryer apparatus through vent holes as taught by Cross in order to treat and condition a load of laundry.
18424840, claim 15
8881422
10415176
11149378
11885064
a housing
Line 2
Line 2
Line 2
Line 2
a receptacle that is mounted within housing capable of containing wet laundry
Lines 3-6
Line 3
Line 3
Line 3
a control that controls the operation of the clothes dryer apparatus
a motor to rotate the receptacle
Lines 21-22
Lines 7-8
one or more ultraviolet light assemblies are disposed within the housing
Line 8
Line 9
Line 9
Line 8
the one or more ultraviolet light assemblies are disposed within and detachably mounted within the housing
dries clothes by using one or more ultraviolet light assemblies
Lines 9-17
Lines 10-12
Lines 9-13
Lines 8-14
one or more reflective components that re-direct the emitted ultraviolet radiation onto the laundry load while the receptacle containing the laundry load is rotating
at least some of the water evaporated from the laundry load exits the clothes dryer apparatus through vent holes
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN PATRICK MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7472. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 1:30 PST.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/JOHN P MCCORMACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights