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 .
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 12, and 15 recite the limitations “determining, based on a numerical relationship between the first external static pressure value, a preset external static pressure value, and the first resistance difference value, that the filter mesh is blocked” and the phrase is indefinite because the boundary of the claim limitation is unclear to the examiner as to what a numerical relationship between the first external static pressure value, a preset external static pressure value, and the first resistance difference value is.
For a purpose of a compact prosecution, the examiner interprets this limitation as determining that the filter mesh is blocked based on comparing among the first external static pressure value, a preset external static pressure value, and the first resistance difference value.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-14, and 16-20 are also rejected 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “A method for detecting a blockage in a filter mesh of an indoor unit, comprising:
obtaining a first resistance difference value of the filter mesh at a preset air volume value;
determining a first external static pressure value during operation of the indoor unit; and
determining, based on a numerical relationship between the first external static pressure value, a preset external static pressure value, and the first resistance difference value, that the filter mesh is blocked.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process for claim 1, and apparatus for claims 12 and 15).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions).
In claim 1, the steps of “obtaining a first resistance difference value of the filter mesh at a preset air volume value”; and
“determining a first external static pressure value during operation of the indoor unit” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea.
The step of “determining, based on a numerical relationship between the first external static pressure value, a preset external static pressure value, and the first resistance difference value, that the filter mesh is blocked” is a combination of a mathematical concept and a mental process, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional element:
detecting a blockage in a filter mesh of an indoor unit.
The additional element “detecting a blockage in a filter mesh of an indoor unit” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, detecting a blockage in a filter mesh of an indoor unit is disclosed by “Qiu CN 112484236A”, Abstract, [0018], [0021], [0022], [0039], [0054]; and “Li CN 109142184A”, Abstract, [0009], [0013], [0015], [0019], [0020].
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 12 and 15 recite subject matter that are similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claims are also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-11, 13-14, and 16-20 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not patent eligible.
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 1-2, 7-12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al. (CN 112484236A, hereinafter Qiu) in view of Li et al. (CN 109142184A, hereinafter Li).
As to claims 1, 12, and 15, Qiu teaches a housing, wherein an air duct is formed in the housing (FIG. 3);
a filter mesh disposed in the air duct (FIG. 3; [0003], [0076]);
a processor, and memory storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations ([0097], [0099]) comprising:
determining a first external static pressure value during operation of the indoor unit ([0051] and [0053] disclose detect the static pressure value in the return air duct, and use the static pressure value detected at this time as the initial static pressure value under the filter fan speed. When dust accumulates on the filter screen, the air duct resistance inevitably increase, and the static pressure also increase (i.e., the initial static pressure value under the filter fan speed can be considered as a first external static pressure value during operation of the indoor unit, and the external static press in HVAC measures the resistance the blower motor must overcome to move air through components like ducts, filters, and coils - emphasis added by Examiner)); and
determining, based on a numerical relationship between the first external static pressure value, a preset external static pressure value that the filter mesh is blocked ([0055] discloses determine whether the filter needs cleaning or replacement based on the difference or ratio between the current static pressure value and the initial static pressure value of the filter under the same windshield. Specifically, when the difference or ratio between the current static pressure value and the initial static
pressure value of the filter screen under the same windshield is detected to be greater than or equal to the preset value within a continuous preset time period, it is determined that the filter screen needs to be cleaned or replaced (i.e., the difference or ratio or a numerical relationship between the initial static pressure value of the filter screen and the preset value can be obtained by comparing between the initial static pressure value of the filter screen and the preset value, and based on the comparison results, whether the filter mesh is blocked can be determined - emphasis added by Examiner)).
Qiu does not explicitly teach obtaining a first resistance difference value of the filter mesh at a preset air volume value; and determining, based on the first resistance difference value, that the filter mesh is blocked.
Li teaches obtaining a first resistance difference value of the filter mesh at a preset air volume value ([0014] and [0015] disclose the process includes testing the resistance of the HEPA filter at different airflow rates under the final resistance state through experiments, and plotting the airflow-resistance curve LQ-P. Instep 1, the reference resistance Pr corresponding to the airflow rate is found through the airflow-resistance curve. In step 2, the real-time resistance is compared with the reference resistance Pr. (i.e., a first resistance difference value of the filter mesh at a preset air volume value can be obtained through the airflow-resistance curve and/or the comparison results of the real-time resistance and the reference resistance Pr - emphasis added by Examiner));
determining, based on the first resistance difference value, that the filter mesh is blocked ([0015] discloses the real-time resistance is compared with the reference resistance Pr. When the difference between the reference resistance and the real-time resistance is less than or equal to zero, Pr-P≤0, prompting the replacement of the high-efficiency filter (i.e., when the difference between the reference resistance and the real-time resistance is less than or equal to zero, the difference indicates that the high-efficiency filter mesh is blocked and need to be replaced - emphasis added by Examiner)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Li into Qiu for the purpose of comparing a real-time resistance with a reference resistance in order to judge whether an efficient filter needs to be replaced according to the comparison result. This combination would improve accurately judging whether the filter reaches the service life and needs to be replaced, so that the influence of other factors on the judgment can be eliminated and the unreasonable utilization of the filter can be avoided. By combining Qui’s determining of the filter mesh is blocked based on a numerical relationship between the first external static pressure value, a preset external static pressure value with Li’s determining of the filter mesh is blocked based on the first resistance difference value, whether the filter mesh is blocked can be determined based on a numerical relationship or by comparing between the first external static pressure value, a preset external static pressure value, and the first resistance difference value.
As to claims 2 and 16, the combination of Qui and Li teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claims 1 and 15, respectively.
Qui teaches a draught fan, and determining the first external static pressure value during operation of the indoor unit ([0053]) comprises:
detecting an operating current value of the draught fan ([0053] discloses detect the static pressure value in the return air duct, and use the static pressure value detected at this time as the initial static pressure value under the filter fan speed (i.e., operating current value of the draught fan - emphasis added by Examiner); and
determining the first external static pressure value according to the preset air volume value and the operating current value ([0003] and [0055] disclose determine whether the filter needs cleaning or replacement based on the difference or ratio between the current static pressure value and the initial static pressure value of the filter under the same windshield. If the filter is not cleaned or replaced in time, the resistance to air intake will increase, the air volume will decrease. When the difference or ratio between the current static pressure value and the initial static pressure value of the filter screen under the same windshield is detected to be greater than or equal to the preset value within a continuous preset time period, it is determined that the filter screen needs to be cleaned or replaced (i.e., the external static pressure value can be determined according to the preset value or preset air volume value and the current static pressure value - emphasis added by Examiner)).
As to claim 7, the combination of Qui and Li teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 2.
Qui does not explicitly teach obtaining a second resistance difference value of the filter mesh; obtaining a rated air volume value of the indoor unit; and determining the first resistance difference value according to the rated air volume value, the preset air volume value and the second resistance difference value.
Li teaches obtaining a second resistance difference value of the filter mesh (FIG. 3, [0034] and [0038] disclose by testing the resistance of the HEPA filter at different air volumes under the final resistance state, the air volume static pressure curve L<sub>Q-P</sub> of the HEPA filter at the final resistance state is calibrated (i.e., resistance difference values including a second of the filter mesh can be obtained from resistance and air volume static pressure curve in FIG. 3- emphasis added by Examiner)),
obtaining a rated air volume value of the indoor unit ([0045] discloses the fresh air unit has a rated air volume of 300 m3/h, and the initial resistance under the rated air volume is 85 Pa; [0047]); and
determining the first resistance difference value according to the rated air volume value, the preset air volume value and the second resistance difference value ([0014], [0020], [0045], and [0047] disclose the process also includes testing the resistance of the HEPA filter at different airflow rates under the final resistance state through experiments, and plotting the airflow-resistance curve LQ-P. In step 1, the reference resistance Pr corresponding to the airflow rate is found through the airflow-resistance curve. By testing the real-time resistance of the HEPA filter and comparing it with the reference resistance under the final resistance state, can accurately determine whether the HEPA filter has reached its service life. The resistance of the HEPA filter P<sub>1</sub> was monitored in real time by a differential pressure sensor until the HEPA filter resistance P<sub>1</sub> reached 240Pa at the rated air volume. At this point, the clogging state of the HEPA filter is the final resistance state when it reaches the end of its service life. The resistance of the HEPA filter under different airflow rates was tested at the final resistance state, and the airflow-resistance curve L<sub>Q-P</sub> was plotted (i.e., the first resistance difference value according to the rated air volume value and the different air volume which would include preset air volume value can be obtained from FIG. 3. The second resistance difference value can also be obtained from FIG. 3. Thus, the first resistance difference value according to the rated air volume value, the preset air volume value and the second resistance difference value can be obtained from FIG. 3- emphasis added by Examiner)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Li into Qiu for the purpose of comparing a real-time resistance with a reference resistance in order to judge whether an efficient filter needs to be replaced according to the comparison result. This combination would improve accurately judging whether the filter reaches the service life and needs to be replaced, so that the influence of other factors on the judgment can be eliminated and the unreasonable utilization of the filter can be avoided.
As to claim 8, the combination of Qui and Li teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 7.
Qui does not explicitly teach obtaining a first preset resistance value and a second preset resistance value of the filter mesh; and determining a second resistance difference value according to the first preset resistance value and the second preset resistance value.
Li teaches obtaining a first preset resistance value and a second preset resistance value of the filter mesh (FIG. 3, [0014], and [0015] disclose the process also includes testing the resistance of the HEPA filter at different airflow rates under the final resistance state through experiments, and plotting the airflow-resistance curve LQ-P. Instep 1, the reference resistance Pr corresponding to the airflow rate is found through the airflow-resistance curve. In step 2, the real-time resistance is compared with the reference resistance Pr. When the difference between the reference resistance and the real-time resistance is less than or equal to zero, Pr-P≤0, prompting the replacement of the high-efficiency filter (i.e., a first preset resistance value Pr2 and a second preset resistance value Pr2 of the filter mesh can be obtained from resistance and air volume static pressure curve in FIG. 3 - emphasis added by Examiner)); and
determining a second resistance difference value according to the first preset resistance value and the second preset resistance value (FIG. 3, [0015], and [0027] disclose instep 1, the reference resistance Pr corresponding to the airflow rate is found through the airflow-resistance curve. In step 2, the real-time resistance is compared with the reference resistance Pr. When the difference between the reference resistance and the real-time resistance is less than or equal to zero, Pr-P≤0, prompting the replacement of the high-efficiency filter. Set up a differential pressure sensor in the fresh air handling unit to test the resistance of the high-efficiency filter, and by testing the real-time resistance of the high-efficiency filter and comparing it with the reference resistance under the final resistance state of the high-efficiency filter, whether the high-efficiency filter has reached the end of its service life can be determined (i.e., a second resistance difference value according to the first preset resistance value and the second preset resistance value can be determined from resistance and air volume static pressure curve in FIG. 3 - emphasis added by Examiner)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Li into Qiu for the purpose of comparing a real-time resistance with a reference resistance in order to judge whether an efficient filter needs to be replaced according to the comparison result. This combination would improve accurately judging whether the filter reaches the service life and needs to be replaced, so that the influence of other factors on the judgment can be eliminated and the unreasonable utilization of the filter can be avoided.
As to claim 9, the combination of Qui and Li teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claims 1.
Qui teaches obtaining a static pressure difference value according to the first external static pressure value and the preset external static pressure value ([0055] discloses determine whether the filter needs cleaning or replacement based on the difference or ratio between the current static pressure value and the initial static pressure value of the filter under the same windshield. Specifically, when the difference or ratio between the current static pressure value and the initial static
pressure value of the filter screen under the same windshield is detected to be greater than or equal to the preset value within a continuous preset time period (i.e., obtaining the difference or ratio or a numerical relationship between the initial static pressure value of the filter screen and the preset value or the preset external static pressure value - emphasis added by Examiner), it is determined that the filter screen needs to be cleaned or replaced).
Qiu does not explicitly teach determining the blockage of the filter mesh according to a numerical relationship between the first resistance difference value and the static pressure difference value.
Li teaches determining the blockage of the filter mesh according to a numerical relationship between the first resistance difference value and the static pressure difference value ([0031] and [0041] disclose as shown in Figure 3, when the filter's operating point is 1', the real-time resistance of the HEPA filter measured by the differential pressure sensor is P<sub>1</sub>. Calculated using the airflow-static pressure curve L<sub>Q-P</sub> fitting formula, the resistance of the HEPA filter when it reaches its lifespan when the airflow is Q<sub>1</sub> is Pr<sub>1</sub>.
Comparing P<sub>1</sub> and Pr<sub>1</sub>, if Pr<sub>1</sub>-P<sub>1</sub>＞0, then the filter has not reached its lifespan and can continue to be used. When the difference between the reference resistance and the real-time resistance is less than or equal to zero, Pr-P≤0, prompting the replacement of the high-efficiency filter (i.e.,
the blockage of the filter mesh can be determined according to a numerical relationship or by comparing between the first resistance difference value and the static pressure difference value as shown in FIG. 3 - emphasis added by Examiner)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Li into Qiu for the purpose of comparing a real-time resistance with a reference resistance in order to judge whether an efficient filter needs to be replaced according to the comparison result. This combination would improve accurately judging whether the filter reaches the service life and needs to be replaced, so that the influence of other factors on the judgment can be eliminated and the unreasonable utilization of the filter can be avoided.
As to claim 10, the combination of Qui and Li teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 9.
Qui teaches determining a ratio of the static pressure difference value to the first resistance difference value ([0042] and [0051] disclose determine whether the dust accumulation on the filter is serious after the indoor unit of the air conditioner has been used for a long time, based on the current static pressure value and the initial static pressure value in the return air duct (i.e., the first resistance difference value - emphasis added by Examiner). The magnitude of static pressure can be used to represent the resistance of this air duct, that is, the greater the air duct resistance, the greater the static pressure. Therefore, when dust accumulates on the filter screen, the air duct resistance will inevitably increase, and the static pressure will also increase (i.e., determining a ratio of the static pressure difference value to the first resistance difference value - emphasis added by Examiner); and
determining that the filter mesh is in a dirty blockage state if the ratio is greater than a preset value ([0051] and [0055] disclose the magnitude of static pressure can be used to represent the resistance of this air duct, that is, the greater the air duct resistance, the greater the static pressure. When the difference or ratio between the current static pressure value and the initial static pressure value of the filter screen under the same windshield is detected to be greater than or equal to the preset value (i.e., the filter mesh is in a dirty blockage state if the ratio of current static pressure value that represent the resistance of this air duct is greater than the preset value - emphasis added by Examiner) within a continuous preset time period, it is determined that the filter screen needs to be cleaned or replaced).
As to claim 11, the combination of Qui and Li teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 10.
Qui teaches in accordance with a determination that the filter mesh is in the dirty blockage state, outputting first prompt information ([0022] discloses when it is determined that the filter needs to be cleaned or replaced, a prompt is sent to the user) or sending second prompt information to a server.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu and Liu, in view of Shan et al. (DE 202021100346U1, hereinafter Shan).
As to claim 13, the combination of Qui and Li teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 12.
Qui teaches an air guide strip disposed at an air outlet of the air duct (FIG. 3, [0076]).
The combination of Qui and Li does not explicitly teach a driving motor, wherein an output of the driving motor is connected to the air guide strip, and the driving motor is configured to adjust an inclination angle of the air guide strip by driving the air guide strip.
Shan teaches a driving motor, wherein an output of the driving motor is connected to the air guide strip ([0022] discloses the electric motor 1 in FIG. 1 is connected to one of the two air guide plates 11 of the air conditioner through the first gear shaft 3 to rotate), and the driving motor is configured to adjust an inclination angle of the air guide strip by driving the air guide strip ([0044] discloses the electric motor 1 is connected to the air guide plate 11 of the air conditioning system, and a swivel angle of the air guide plate can be controlled, and the outflow direction at the air outlet 13 of the air conditioning system is better adjusted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Shan into Qiu in view of Li for the purpose of providing a drive device for an air conditioning air guide plate and an air conditioning system in order to efficiently drive an electric motor and change the direction of the outflow of air. This combination would improve in generating lower costs and less electricity consumption, which will be conducive to environmental protection.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu, Liu, and Shan, in view of Fujino et al. (JP 2009243848A, hereinafter Fujino).
As to claim 14, the combination of Qui, Li, and Shan teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 13.
The combination of Qui, Li, and Shan does not explicitly teach an outdoor unit connected to the indoor unit.
Fujino teaches an outdoor unit connected to the indoor unit (FIG. 1 shows an outdoor unit 5 is connected to the indoor unit, the air conditioner 1; [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Fujino into Qiu in view of Li and Shan for the purpose of providing an indoor unit and air conditioner, and an outdoor unit that can accurately inform a user of when it is time to clean the indoor unit, by comparing an accumulated drive time, which is a sum of the drive time of an indoor fan, with a predetermined, adjustable threshold value. This combination would improve in estimating the amount of dust collected by the air filter and, consequently determining the amount of dust removed by the dust removal unit based on the cumulative operating time of the indoor fan, and the appropriate cleaning time for the dust removal unit.
Examiner' s Note
Regarding Claims 3-6, and 17-20, the most pertinent prior arts are “"Qui CN 112484236A", "Li CN 109142184A", "Shan DE 202021100346U1", and "Fujino JP 2009243848A".
As to claims 3 and 17, Qiu teaches wherein determining the first external static pressure value according to the preset air volume value and the operating current value (Qui, [0050], [0053], [0054], [0055]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “determining a first correspondence relationship between a current value of the draught fan and an external static pressure value according to the preset air volume value”;
“determining a second external static pressure value according to the operating current value and the first correspondence relationship”; and
“obtaining a static pressure correction value, and calculating the first external static pressure value according to the second external static pressure value and the static pressure correction value” including all limitations as claimed.
As to claims 6 and 20, Li teaches wherein determining the first resistance difference value under the corresponding first resistance difference value according to the preset air volume value (Li, [0014], [0015]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “obtaining a third correspondence relationship between an air volume value and a resistance difference value of the filter mesh”; and
“determining the first resistance difference value according to the preset air volume value and the third correspondence relationship” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 4-5 and 18-19 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claims 3 and 17.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Fu CN 106403229A” teaches “The invention relates to a wind direction control device, an air conditioner and an air conditioner control method. The wind direction control device comprises a first wind guiding device and a second wind guiding device, wherein the first wind guiding device and the second wind guiding device are each arranged in a stacked manner. The first wind guiding device is used for controlling the wind direction in the vertical direction. The second wind guiding device is used for controlling the wind direction in the horizontal direction. The first wind guiding device and the second wind guiding device mutually cooperate to adjust the air discharge direction of an air outlet so that air can flow in different areas. According to the wind direction control device, the air conditioner and the air conditioner control method, because the first wind guiding device and the second wind guiding device are arranged and mutually cooperate to adjust the air discharge direction of the air outlet, on the premise of not additionally increasing the electric energy consumption, air can flow in the different areas, and air in a closed environment can be conditioned as soon as possible.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 EST.
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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights