Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note).
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this Application on 30 March 2026 after the Final Rejection (30 December 2025). Since this Application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 30 March 2026 has been entered.
Art Rejections
Obviousness
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 1–16 and 18–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of WO 2023/093528 A1 (effectively filed 09 November 2022) (“Qin”)1,2 and US Patent Application Publication 2023/0007401 (effectively filed 02 December 2019) (“Zhu”).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Qin; Zhu and US Patent Application Publication 2024/0406637 (effectively filed 28 April 2022) (“Ozawa”).
Claim 1 is drawn to “an electrodynamic actuator.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed electrodynamic actuator and the Qin reference.
Claim 1
The Qin Reference
“1. An electrodynamic actuator, which in particular is designed to be connected to a plate like structure or membrane and which comprises:
The Qin reference similarly describes a moving-iron exciter corresponding to the claimed electrodynamic actuator. Qin at Abs., p.1, FIGs.2–6. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that Qin’s exciter is an electrodynamic actuator for use with a plate-like structure since it is usable to vibrate a display and because it leverages the on electrodynamic interaction between a magnet and electrical charges moving in a coiled conductor. Id. at p.2.
“at least one voice coil having an electrical conductor in the shape of loops running around a coil axis in a loop section;
Qin’s exciter includes voice coils 2a and 2b, each formed by wire, or an electrical conductor, looped around a coil axis in several loop sections, or layers. Id. at p. 13, FIG.6.
“a magnet system being designed to generate a magnetic field transverse to the electrical conductor in the loop section; and
Qin’s exciter includes a magnetic system 3 formed by magnetic parts 3a and 3b that generate a magnetic field that interacts with voice coils 2a and 2b.
However, Qin does not anticipate arranging the magnetic field transverse to the wires of voice coils 2a and 2b. Rather, magnetic parts 3a and 3b are arranged with poles oriented along the exciter’s vibration axis so that the magnetic field in the loop section is primarily parallel to rather than transverse to the wire of voice coils 2a, 2b.
“a plurality of arms mechanically coupling the at least one voice coil, and wherein either a) the magnet system and allowing a relative movement between the at least one voice coil and said magnet system in an excursion direction parallel to the coil axis, or b) a movable part of the magnet system and allowing a relative movement between the at least one voice coil and said movable part of the magnet system in an excursion direction parallel to the coil axis, and
Qin’s exciter includes a suspension 4 with multiple elastic arms 44 that connect voice coils 2a, 2b and magnetic parts 3a and 3b while allowing relative movement along a vibration direction parallel to the axis of coils 2a, 2b. Id. at p.11, FIG.5.
“wherein in case a) the magnet system and in case b) the movable part of the magnet system comprises a plurality of magnet subsystems, which are movable to each other in the excursion direction, and
Qin’s exciter includes a magnetic system comprising a plurality of magnet subsystems, or magnetic parts, 3a and 3b that move along an excursion, or vibration, direction. Id. at 11, FIG.5.
“wherein a first magnet subsystem of the magnet subsystems and a first part of the arms, which mechanically couple the at least one voice coil and the first magnet subsystem, form a first oscillating system with a first resonance frequency
f
r
e
s
1
, and
“a second magnet subsystem of the magnet subsystems and a second part of the arms, which mechanically couple the at least one voice coil and the second magnet subsystem, form a second oscillating system with a second resonance frequency
f
r
e
s
2
, which is different from the first resonance frequency
f
r
e
s
1
,
Likewise, Qin describes at least two oscillating/vibration systems: the first system includes magnetic part 3a and inner suspension parts 41a and 42a.
The second system includes magnetic part 3b and outer suspension parts 41b and 42b. Id. at p. 14, FIGs.3, 5.
Qi further describes independently tuning the resonance of the vibrating systems so that each system will have its own different resonance. Id. at pp. 4, 16.
“wherein the first oscillating system and the second oscillating system share the at least one voice coil.”
Because voice coil 2a is situated in a gap between magnetic parts 3a and 3b, Qin’s two oscillating systems share voice coil 2a. See id. at p.9, ¶ 8 to p.10, ¶ 2, FIG.5.
Table 1
The table above shows that the Qin reference describes an exciter that corresponds closely to the claimed electrodynamic actuator. The Qin reference does not anticipate the claimed invention, however, because Qin’s magnetic circuits are arranged with a magnetic field that is primarily parallel to a voice coil’s windings rather than transverse to the voice coil’s windings.
The differences between the claimed invention and the Qin reference are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this Application was effectively filed. As shown in the table above, the Qin reference describes an electrodynamic device that operates on the principle of interaction between a fixed magnetic field and a moving charge in a voice coil. While Qin orients the magnetic field of each magnet in a parallel manner, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that a peripheral portion of that field is oriented transverse to the axis of the voice coils due to the position and mutual influence of magnets 3a and 3b.
The Zhu reference relates to the Qin reference because it similarly describes an electrodynamic device having a magnetic system and voice coil. Zhu at Abs., ¶¶ 35– 37, FIGs.2, 4. Zhu illustrates an alternative magnetic circuit arrangement with each magnet 21–24 arranged with its poles in a transverse manner relative to a coil 3 in order to produce a magnetic field that is transverse to the coil axis. Id. The magnetic subsystems are then joined into a circuit by the addition of an outer yoke structure 1. Id.
Read in light of Qin, the Zhu reference would have reasonably suggested modifying Zhu’s exciter to have a similar type of magnetic circuit. For example, one of ordinary skill would have modified Qin’s magnetic units 3a, 3b to be polarized transverse to their vibration direction and would have formed Qin’s fixed frame as a magnetic element to act as a yoke to close a magnetic circuit. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that Zhu’s magnetic circuit would produce a highly efficient design that efficiently directs magnetic flux through each voice coil and minimizes stray flux above and below the voice coil. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected that this alternative design would optimize Qin’s BL attribute, producing an effective and powerful device. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Qin and the Zhu references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein a ratio between the second resonance frequency
f
r
e
s
2
and the first resonance frequency
f
r
e
s
1
is in a range of
0.9
<
f
r
e
s
2
/
f
r
e
s
1
<
1.0
or
1.0
<
f
r
e
s
2
/
f
r
e
s
1
<
1.1
.”
The Qin reference describes tuning the resonance of at least two vibrating systems to be either equal or different in order to widen the frequency response of an exciter. Qin at p. 15. However, Qin does not describe the particular claimed ratios. One of ordinary skill, however, would have recognized that the particular ratio between Qin’s vibrating systems is a design choice that will vary based on the desired frequency response of the exciter, the type of display or panel actuated by the exciter, the type of signal to be reproduced by the exciter and the display and the frequency range to be reproduced. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to experiment with various combinations of resonances, including equal resonances, closely matched resonances (e.g. ratios varying by less than 10%) and largely divergent resonances (e.g., ratios varying by more than 10%). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Qin and the Zhu references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“further comprising a plurality of voice coils, each having an electrical conductor in the shape of loops running around a common coil axis in loop sections or around separate coil axes being oriented parallel to each other,
“wherein the magnet system is designed to generate a magnetic field transverse to the electrical conductors in the loop sections, and
“the arms allow a relative movement between the voice coils and in case a) the magnet system or in case b) the movable part of the magnet system in an excursion direction parallel to the common coil axis or parallel to the separate coil axes.”
Similarly, Qin describes providing multiple voice coils 2a, 2b arranged with parallel axes connected to movable arms 44 of suspension 4 and located in a magnetic field produced by magnetic units 3a, 3b. Qin at pp. 11–12, FIGs.2, 5, 6. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Qin and the Zhu references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3 and further requires the following:
“wherein the voice coils are nested when viewed in a direction parallel to the excursion direction and at least overlap when viewed in a direction perpendicular to the excursion direction.”
Similarly, Qin’s voice coils 2a, 2b are nested when viewed from the top (i.e., along the vibration axis of the exciter) and overlap when viewed from the side (i.e., a direction perpendicular to the excursion direction). Qin at FIGs.5, 6. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Qin and the Zhu references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 5 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“further comprising a plurality of voice coils that are nested when viewed in a direction parallel to the excursion direction, [sic .]3”
Similarly, Qin’s voice coils 2a, 2b are nested when viewed from the top (i.e., along the vibration axis of the exciter) and overlap when viewed from the side (i.e., a direction perpendicular to the excursion direction). Qin at FIGs.5, 6. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Qin and the Zhu references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 10 depends on claim 5 and further requires the following:
“wherein the voice coils have a circular, rectangular or oval contour when viewed in a direction perpendicular to the excursion direction.”
Qin’s voice coils 2a, 2b are depicted as rectangular in geometry. Qin at FIG.2. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Qin and the Zhu references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 12 depends on claim 10 and further requires the following:
“wherein the voice coils are fully enclosed by the first iron body at the shorter sides of their rectangular or oval contour and run side by side to the first iron body at the longer sides of their rectangular or oval contour.”
Similarly, adding Zhu’s yoke to Qin’s exciter would fully enclose voice coils 2a, 2b with the yoke and the yoke would run side-by-side with coils 2a, 2b on the other side. See Qin at FIGs.5, 6, 8; Zhu at FIGs.1, 4. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Qin and the Zhu references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 14 depends on claim 10 and further requires the following:
“wherein the voice coils are enclosed by the first iron body on two, three or four sides of their rectangular cross sections at the shorter sides of their rectangular or oval contour, and run side by side to and spaced from the first iron body or contact the first iron body on only one side of their rectangular cross sections at the longer sides of their rectangular or oval contour.”
Similarly, adding Zhu’s yoke to Qin’s exciter would fully enclose voice coils 2a, 2b with the yoke and the yoke would run side-by-side with coils 2a, 2b on the other side. See Qin at FIGs.5, 6, 8; Zhu at FIGs.1, 4. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Qin and the Zhu references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 6 depends on claim 5 and further requires the following:
“wherein the magnet system in case b) comprises permanent magnets and a first iron body, wherein the movable part of the magnet system is formed by or comprises the permanent magnets, wherein an arrangement is formed by the first iron body and the at least one voice coil, wherein the at least one voice coil is fixed to or embedded in the first iron body and wherein the arms allow a relative movement between said arrangement and the permanent magnets in an excursion direction parallel to the coil axis.”
As shown in the obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, the combination of the Qin and the Zhu references suggest polarizing Qin’s magnets 3a, 3b in a direction transverse to the coil axis along which coils 2a, 2b are wound and providing a separate iron body, or yoke, to close a magnetic circuit. In that case, Qin’s magnetic circuit will include transversely magnetized magnets 3a, 3b that are fixed to arms 44 of suspension 4 in order to allow relative movement between the magnets and coils 2a, 2b and the iron body yoke in a direction parallel to the vibration direction. See Qin at pp. 11–12; Zhu at FIG.4. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Qin and the Zhu references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 7 depends on claim 6 and further requires the following:
“wherein the permanent magnets are each magnetized in a magnetizing direction transverse to the coil axis.”
As shown in the obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, the combination of the Qin and the Zhu references suggest polarizing Qin’s magnets 3a, 3b in a direction transverse to the coil axis along which coils 2a, 2b are wound. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Qin and the Zhu references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 16 depends on claim 6 and further requires the following:
“wherein the extension of the first iron body in a direction parallel to the excursion direction is larger than the extension of the voice coils and the permanent magnets in said direction parallel to the excursion direction.”
As shown in the obviousness rejection of claim 1, it would have been obvious to form Qin’s fixed frame 11 as a magnetic-conducting yoke, which would result in an extension of frame 11 being larger than voice coils 2a, 2b along the vibration/excursion direction of magnetic units 3a, 3b. See Qin at FIG.5. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Qin and the Zhu references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 8 depends on claim 5 and further requires the following:
“comprising an outer voice coil of the nested voice coils and a plurality of inner voice coils of the nested voice coils, wherein the inner voice coils are arranged next to each other with a space in-between.”
In an alternative embodiment, Qin describes providing an outer voice coil 21 and a plurality of nested voice coils 22 that are arranged next to each other and spaced apart from each other. Qin at p.10, FIG.8. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Qin and the Zhu references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 11 depends on claim 8 and further requires the following:
“wherein the outer voice coil of the nested voice coils has a circular contour or a rectangular contour with rounded corners and the inner voice coil of the nested voice coils has/have an oval contour or a rectangular contour with rounded corners when viewed in a direction perpendicular to the excursion direction.”
In Qin’s alternative embodiment, outer voice coil 21 is rectangular with rounded corners and the inner voice coils 22 are similarly rectangular with rounded corners. Qin at FIG.8. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Qin and the Zhu references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 13 depends on claim 5 and further requires the following:
“wherein the voice coils each have a rectangular cross section.”
Qin depicts voice coils 2a, 2b as having a rectangular cross section. Qin at FIGs.5, 6. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Qin and the Zhu references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 15 depends on claim 5 and further requires the following:
“wherein the cross section of the voice coils is different.”
Qin’s voice coils 2a, 2b have different cross sections since each coil has a different size. Qin at FIGs.5, 6. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Qin and the Zhu references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 9 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“comprising either: a second iron body, which connects at least two parts of the magnet system in case a) or at least two parts of the movable part of the magnet system in case b), or
“a non-iron body, which connects at least two parts of the magnet system in case a) or at least two parts of the movable part of the magnet system in case b).”
In an alternative embodiment, Qin describes providing an outer voice coil 21 and a plurality of nested voice coils 22 that are arranged next to each other and spaced apart from each other. Qin at p.10, FIG.8. That embodiment further includes a magnet 3 including an iron top plate that forms an iron body connecting a first part running through the center of the magnet 3 and a second part forming the periphery of magnet 3. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Qin and the Zhu references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 17 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the first iron body is made from soft iron.”
While the Zhu reference suggests forming Qin’s frame 11 as a magnetically conducting yoke, the references do not teach or suggest the use of soft iron. However, one of ordinary skill would have immediately recognized soft iron as a suitable material for a yoke. See Ozawa at ¶ 3. It would have been obvious to implement Qin’s frame 11 with soft iron. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Qin, the Zhu and the Ozawa references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 18 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the at least one voice coil or the magnet system comprises a flat mounting surface, which is intended to be connected to the plate like structure.”
Similarly, Qin’s exciter includes a fixed plate 12 that forms a flat mounting surface as part of a magnet system in order to connect to a sounding body, such as a plate-like display. Qin at pp. 2, 11, FIGs.1, 4. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Qin and the Zhu references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 19 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“An electrodynamic transducer, comprising a plate like structure and an electrodynamic actuator connected to the plate like structure, wherein the electrodynamic actuator is designed according to claim 1.”
Qin describes combining the claimed electrodynamic actuator with a plate-like structure, such as a display panel. Qin at p. 2, FIG.1. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Qin and the Zhu references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 20 depends on claim 19 and further requires the following:
“wherein an average sound pressure level of the electrodynamic transducer measured in an orthogonal distance of 10 cm from the sound emanating surface is at least 50 dB SPL in a frequency range from 100 Hz to 15 kHz.”
The Qin reference describes tuning the resonance of at least two vibrating systems to be either equal or different in order to widen the frequency response of an exciter used to drive a display panel to operate as a speaker. Qin at pp. 2, 15. However, Qin does not describe producing an average SPL measured 10 cm away from display 10 of at least 50 dB SPL in a frequency range from 100 Hz to 15 kHz. One of ordinary skill, however, would have recognized that the particular SPL output is a design choice that will vary based on the desired frequency response of the exciter, the type of display or panel actuated by the exciter, the type of signal to be reproduced by the exciter and the display and the frequency range to be reproduced. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to experiment and produce the claimed output based on all of the numerous design choices made in designing a vibrating display device. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Qin and the Zhu references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 21 depends on claim 19 and further requires the following:
“An output device comprising an electrodynamic transducer as claimed in claim 19, wherein the plate like structure is embodied as a display, wherein the electrodynamic actuator is connected to the backside of the display.”
Qin describes combining the claimed electrodynamic transducer fixed to the rear of a display panel. Qin at pp. 2, 7, FIG.1. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Qin and the Zhu references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 22 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“A speaker, comprising an electrodynamic actuator as claimed in claim 1 and a membrane, which is fixed thereto.”
Qin describes forming a speaker by combining the actuator of claim 1 to the rear of a display panel that acts as a membrane. Qin at pp. 2, 7, FIG.1. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Qin and the Zhu references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Summary
Claims 1–22 are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s Reply (30 March 2026) has substantively amended all the claims. This Office action has been updated accordingly to clarify how the Qin reference continues to describe the newly added limitations.
Applicant’s Reply at 9–11 further includes comments pertaining to the rejections included in the Final Rejection (30 December 2025). Regarding claim 1, Applicant comments that Qin does not describe that the two claimed oscillating systems share at least one voice coil. (Reply at 9). In light of the updated claim language, the rejection has been updated to illustrate the correspondence between the claimed invention and the Qin reference. Specifically, the first oscillating system corresponds to Qin’s magnet 3a and arms 41a and 42a. The first oscillating system corresponds to Qin’s magnet 3b and arms 41b and 42b. Further, the two oscillating systems share coil 2a, which wraps around magnet 3a and sits in a gap between magnets 3a and 3b.
Applicant further comments that the Qin reference states: “there is no connection relationship between the magnetic piece 3 and the voice coil 2.” (Reply at 9.) In context, the quoted portions of Qin describe a direct physical connection while recognizing that magnetic piece 3 is suspended within the confines of voice coil 2. Qin at p.9, ¶ 8. The suspension of magnetic piece 3 relative to voice coil 2 requires a connection between the magnetic piece 3 and voice coil 2, which is apparent from the connection between arms 41a, 442a, 41b, 42b and frame 12 and the connection between frame 12 and voice coils 2a, 2b. See Qin at p.12, ¶ 9, FIGs.5, 13. This is the same type of connection recited in the claims: “a first part of the arms, which mechanically couple the at least one voice coil and the first magnet subsystem… a second part of the arms, which mechanically couple the at least one voice coil and the second magnet subsystem.”
Applicant comments that the Qin reference characterizes its vibration systems as a combination of a magnetic part 3 and suspension parts 41, 42. (Reply at 9). This comment is unpersuasive because it focuses on a semantic difference between the language used by Applicant and the Qin reference and not any structural difference between the claimed invention and the speaker described by the Qin reference. Since patent applicants may be their own lexicographers, the meaning of terms in the claim are construed based on how they are used in a given application, and not limited strictly to what is found in the prior art. Here, Applicant has used the term “oscillating system” to refer to a combination of a magnet, arms and at least one shared voice coil. Thus, the first claimed oscillating system corresponds to Qin’s magnets 3a, arms/suspensions 41a, 42a and inner voice coil 2a as shown in the rejection of claim 1. Further, the second claimed oscillating system corresponds to Qin’s magnet 3b, arms 41b, 42b and inner voice coil 2a.
Applicant’s further comments are inapt because they are based on the unpersuasive comments addressed above. (Reply at 9–11). For the foregoing reasons, Applicant has not persuasively established any error in the Office action. All the rejections will be maintained.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WALTER F BRINEY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-4:30 pm.
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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/Walter F Briney III/
/Walter F Briney III/Primary ExaminerArt Unit 2692
5/11/2026
1 The Qin reference qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) because it is a published international application for patent that designates the United States. 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(2) and 374; MPEP § 2154.01(a).
2 References to Qin’s written description are made with reference to the machine translation provided by the Office. References to Qin’s drawings are made with reference to the published WIPO document.
3 Claim 5 is objected to for ending in a comma (,) instead of a period (.).
Prosecution Insights