DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 1/5/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11-12, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in step “a.” after “control unit” delete “,” to place the claim in better form.
In step “a.”, after “a flow of” delete “steam” to place the claim in better form.
In step “e.”, after “feeding” delete “a said flow of steam generated by said device for generating steam” and insert “a flow of steam generated by said steam generator device” in order to place the claim in better form.
In step “g.”, before “arranged in a condition” insert “wherein said discharge passage is” in order to place the claim in better form.
In step “h.”, after “repeating” delete “the”, and after “step g.” delete “of reducing said oxygen content,” since the limitation is redundant.
Regarding claim 3, in line 1 after “executing” delete “the” and after “step g.” delete “of reducing the oxygen content” since the limitation is redundant.
In line 3 after “from an initial” delete “value between 17 and 21% in a time interval shorter or equal to 210” and insert “oxygen content between 17% and 21 in a time internal less than or equal to 210 seconds”.
Regarding claim 5, in line 1 after “wherein” delete “said” and after “step g.” delete “of reducing the oxygen content” since the limitation is redundant.
In line 2 after “operating said” delete “device for generating steam” and insert “steam generator device”.
In line 4, after “to generate and” delete “feed said superheated flow of” and insert “supply said superheated”.
Regarding claim 6, in line 2 after “during” delete “the” and after “step h.” delete “of maintaining said detected oxygen content” since the limitation is redundant.
Regarding claim 7, in line 1 after “during” delete “said” and after “step h.” delete “of maintaining said detected oxygen content” since the limitation is redundant.
Regarding claim 8, in line 1 after “during” delete “said” and after “step h.” delete “of maintaining said detected oxygen content” since the limitation is redundant.
Regarding claim 9, in line 1 after “during” delete “said” and after “step g.” delete “of progressively reducing said oxygen content inside said chamber” since the limitation is redundant.
In line 5 after “0.1” insert “%”.
Regarding claim 11, in line 2 delete “a maximum time interval of shutdown equal to or less than 3 minutes from step e. of starting said treatment process” and insert “within a time interval of 3 minutes or less from step e.”
Regarding claim 12, in line 1 after “during” delete “the” and after “step h.” delete “of maintaining said detected oxygen content” since the limitation is redundant.
Regarding claim 16, in line 2 before “atmospheric” delete “the”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
Claim 1 step “a.” recites “a control unit, configured to control a flow…” The limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph to comprise an electrical computer as is known in the art (page 4 lines 17-21).
Claim 1 step “b.” recites “preheating said treatment chamber to an operating temperature…by operating heating means”. The limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph to comprise any heating means recognized by the art, including the device for generating steam (page 1 lines 34-36).
Claim 1 step “d.” recites “closing said treatment chamber by means of said closing element”. The limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph to comprise a door (page 5 lines 4-5).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 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.
Regarding claim 1, in lines 1-2 the limitation “in particular substances and/or food preparations intended to be subjected to a thermal treatment for use as food” renders the claim indefinite. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation “food products”, and the claim also recites “substances and/or food preparations intended…use as food” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. It is further unclear what is meant by the limitation in question, and what “substances and/or food preparations” are encompassed.
In step “a.”, the limitation “at least one said food product” lacks antecedent basis. Line 1 recites “food products” (plural). It is unclear if the method encompasses a minimum of one food product or multiple food products.
In step “c.”, the limitation “one said product” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite for the same reasons stated for step “a.” above.
In step “g.”, the limitation “said oxygen content detected by the control operated by said control unit” renders the claim indefinite since the antecedent basis of “said oxygen contented detected by” is ambiguous and “the control operated by”, and it is unclear exactly what is being claimed. Step “a.” recites “an oxygen content detected by said oxygen sensor”, not by “the control operated by said control unit”. Further, step “f.” recites “detecting an initial value of the oxygen content…” and it is unclear which of the above is being referred to. Step “a.” also recites “a control unit, configured to control a flow of said steam”, and it is unclear if “the control operated by said control unit” is referring to said feature.
In step “g.”, the limitation “excess oxygen” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what the limitation is referring to, and further unclear what the term “excess” is relative to. It is noted the rejection may be overcome by removing “excess” such that the limitation recites “causing oxygen to flow through…”
In step “g.”, the limitation “until one said detected oxygen content equal to or lower than a maximum admissible value” renders the claim indefinite since the antecedent basis for “one said detected oxygen content” is ambiguous and it is unclear what is meant by “one said”. Step “f.” only requires detecting “an initial value of the oxygen content”. There is no indication that the oxygen value is continuously “detected” throughout step “g.” It is unclear if “one said detected oxygen content” is referring to that of step “f.”, or to the oxygen content in the chamber during step “g.”
In step “h.”, the limitation “said detected oxygen content” (both recitations) renders the claim indefinite since the antecedent basis is ambiguous as stated for step “g.” above.
In step “h.”, the limitation “the control operated by said control unit” renders the claim indefinite for the same reasons stated for step “g.” above.
In step “h.”, the limitation “said oxygen content detected by said sensor” renders the claim indefinite since the antecedent basis is ambiguous as stated for step “g.” above.
In step “i.”, the limitation “a given time interval and/or after achieving a desired treatment” renders the claim indefinite since the boundary of the limitation is unclear. The specification does not define “treatment”, and therefore the subject matter encompassed by the term is ambiguous. Likewise, a “desired treatment” is similarly ambiguous. It is further unclear if “achieving a desired treatment” has overlapping subject matter with “a given time internal”, and therefore how the two are distinguished.
In step “i.”, the limitation “said product” renders the claim indefinite since the preamble recites “food products” (plural), and for the same reasons stated for step “a.” above.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “preferably equal to or less than 0.25%” renders the claim indefinite as the narrow range of the broad range “equal to or less than 0.5%”.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “preferably between 10 and 210 seconds” renders the claim indefinite as the narrow range of the broad range “shorter or equal to 210 seconds”.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “suitable phase relationship” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what the limitation means. The specification does not provide clarifying detail.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “preferably equal to atmospheric pressure” renders the claim indefinite as the narrow limitation of the broad limitation “a desired value”.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “said detection sensor” lacks antecedent basis.
In line 4, the antecedent basis of “said detected oxygen content” is ambiguous for the reasons stated for claim 1 step “g.”.
In line 4, the limitation “preferably between 0.15 and 2% O2/s, even more preferably between 0.2 and 2% O2/s” renders the claim indefinite as the narrow range of the broad range “0.1 and 2% O2/s”.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the distribution of gases and temperatures inside said treatment chamber” renders the claim indefinite since the antecedent basis of “gases” and “temperatures” is ambiguous. There is no previous indication of multiple “gases” and “temperatures” present throughout the chamber.
Regarding claim 11, the term “it” renders the claim indefinite since the antecedent basis of the term is ambiguous.
Regarding claim 12, the term “it” renders the claim indefinite since the antecedent basis of the term is ambiguous.
Regarding claim 13, in lines 1 and 2 the term “it” renders the claim indefinite since the antecedent basis of the term is ambiguous.
In line 2, the limitation “one said superheated device” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “preferably it is equal to 100oC” renders the claim indefinite as the narrow range of the broad range “between 60oC and 130oC”.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “in particular a kind of meat” renders the claim indefinite as the narrow limitation of the broad limitation “animal product”.
The limitation “preferably between 100oC and 250oC” renders the claim indefinite as the narrow range of the broad range “between 60oC and 300oC”.
Claims 4, 6-7 and 16 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coltro et al. (EP 3748237 A1) in view of Umeda et al. (US 2008/0020114 A1) and Embury et al. (US 2009/0136640 A1).
Regarding claim 1, in view of the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) above, step “g.” is interpreted to encompass a process of controlling, by the control unit, a supply of steam to the chamber in order to displace oxygen therein, the oxygen flowing through the discharge passage, until an oxygen content within the chamber is less than or equal to 1%. Step “h.” is interpreted to encompass maintaining the reduced oxygen content less than or equal to 1%, monitoring the oxygen content, and repeating step “g.” when the monitored oxygen content exceeds 1%.
Coltro et al. teaches a method and apparatus for cooking food with steam (abstract) comprising a cooking chamber 4, a door 12, a steam generator device 30 and superheating device 31, and a control unit configured to control a flow of steam as a function of detected oxygen content (figures 2-3; paragraphs 89, 105, 147-150 and 152). In operation, the food is placed into the chamber, the door is closed, the control unit activates the steam generating device to generate steam, superheating the steam to a desired temperature, and passing the steam into the cooking chamber to “completely” replace the oxygen present therein through discharge opening 32, then operating at steady state, where the process is controlled by the control unit based on detected oxygen content (paragraphs 188-197). The oxygen content is monitored by the control unit and reduced to below a limit value, and if the content exceeds the limit value, additional steam is generated and passed into the chamber (paragraphs 198-199 and 202-203). The treatment is stopped after a given time interval (paragraph 153) and/or achieving a desired treatment (cooking) for the food (paragraphs 203-204).
Coltro et al. does not teach the limit value of oxygen content is less than or equal to 1%.
Umeda et al. teaches a method and apparatus for heating and pasteurizing food comprising replacing air within the chamber with steam in order to obtain an oxygen concentration of 1% or less (abstract; paragraphs 18-19). The reduced oxygen content allows for heating under non-oxidizing conditions (paragraph 61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Coltro et al. reduce the oxygen content to 1% or less since the reference indicates wanting to minimize oxidation (paragraph 4) and allow for “optimal preservation of the nutritional properties of foods and their healthiness” (paragraph 21), since the claimed limit is recognized by the prior art, since the evidence of record does not indicate criticality or unexpected results associated with the range, and since the values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization due to factors such as those stated above.
Coltro et al. does not teach preheating the chamber to an operating temperature using heating means associated with the treatment chamber.
Embury et al. teaches a method and apparatus for cooking food with steam (abstract), where the apparatus comprises heating system 35 having broiler 36 and lower heating element 38 (figure 2; paragraph 19), the method comprising a dry preheat stage where heating system 35 heats the cavity to a first temperature before steam heating, thereby raising the temperature of all exposed surfaces to a level sufficient for preventing steam from condensing (paragraph 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Coltro et al. to preheat the chamber using heating means since the prior art recognizes the feature for methods and devices for cooking foods with steam, and to similarly ensure condensation does not occur within the chamber, thereby ensuring against inconsistent and/or unexpected heating profiles.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art teaches an oxygen content of 1% or less as stated above.
Umeda et al. further teaches the oxygen content can be reduced to 0.01% (paragraph 64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Coltro et al. reduce the oxygen content to 0.5% or less for the same reasons stated for claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Coltro et al. does not teach the oxygen content is reduced from an initial value of 17-21% in a time interval of 210 seconds or less.
However, oxygen content of air is known to be about 21%, and Coltro et al. teaches controlling steam supply based on oxygen content within the chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Coltro et al. to reduce the oxygen content over the claimed time period since the evidence of record does not indicate criticality or unexpected results associated with the range, and since the values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization due to factors such flow rate of steam, size of the chamber, and desired final oxygen content.
Regarding claim 4, Coltro et al. teaches the steam is generated by steam generator device 30 and then superheated by device 31 prior to supplying the superheated steam to the chamber (paragraphs 167-169), construed to be “previously superheating said supplied steam”.
Regarding claim 5, in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above, the limitation is interpreted to mean the combination of the steam generator device and the superheating device obtain superheated steam at a temperature between 130 and 600oC.
Coltro et al. teaches the steam generator device 30 in combination with the superheating device 31 supply superheated steam at a temperature of 130-600oC as stated for claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Coltro et al. teaches deactivating the steam generating device 30 when a measured oxygen content is lower than the limit value (paragraph 198), where deactivation would necessarily reduce the flow of superheated steam.
Regarding claim 7, Coltro et al. teaches valve means controls the quantity of exhausted steam, where the valve means is switched to the closed configuration during the process of maintaining the oxygen content below the limit value (paragraph 185).
Regarding claim 8, Coltro et al. teaches controlling the valve means and a ventilation device in order to obtain a pressure gradient within the chamber (paragraph 200). The limitation where the maintained pressure gradient is construed to be “substantially equal to a desired value”.
Regarding claim 9, Coltro et al. does not teach reducing oxygen content inside the chamber comprises controlling flow of steam so the sensor registers an average rate of decrease of oxygen content between 0.1 and 2% O2/s.
However, the combination applied to claim 1 teaches reducing oxygen content within the chamber by replacing the air with supplied steam, the process controlled to obtain an oxygen content of less than or equal to 1% as claimed. Further, characteristics used to control the process include “the average speed of the [steam]” (paragraph 178).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Coltro et al. to control flow of steam to obtain the claimed rate of oxygen content decrease since the evidence of record does not indicate criticality or unexpected results associated with the range, and since the values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization due to factors such as flow rate of steam, size of the chamber, and desired final oxygen content.
Regarding claim 10, Coltro et al. teaches ventilation device 18 that facilitates distribution of the superheated steam in the chamber (paragraph 193).
Regarding claim 11, in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above, the limitation is interpreted to mean the ventilation assembly is operated within 3 minutes of the start of treatment.
Coltro et al. does not specify the ventilation assembly is operated within 3 minutes as claimed.
However, the reference teaches using said assembly to facilitate uniform distribution of the steam and create a pressure gradient within the chamber to convey exhausted steam to the superheating device 31 (paragraphs 131 and 193).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Coltro et al. to operate the ventilation assembly within the time period in order to ensure the above processes are appropriately carried out, thereby ensuring optimal treatment of the food, and since the evidence of record does not indicate criticality or unexpected results associated with the range.
Regarding claim 12, Coltro et al. teaches controlling the valve to control steam exhausted from the chamber, where the valve is switched to a closed position as stated for claim 7. The ventilation system controls movement of the steam within the chamber as stated for claim 10. Therefore, the system would have necessarily provided “for a recirculation of said flow of steam inside said treatment chamber” as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Coltro et al. teaches using the ventilation assembly to facilitate uniform distribution of the steam and create a pressure gradient within the chamber to convey exhausted steam to the superheating device 31 (paragraphs 131 and 193).
Regarding claims 14-15, Coltro et al. does not specify the operating temperatures for the respective food types.
However, the reference teaches cooking foods and an operating temperature encompassing the claimed range (paragraph 168), where it is well known in the art to cook different foods at different temperatures and durations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Coltro et al. to control the operating temperature to the claimed values based on the type of food since the evidence of record does not indicate criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed features and ranges, and since the values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization due to factors such as desired final characteristics of the particular type of cooked food.
Regarding claim 16, Coltro et al. does not specify the pressure is maintained substantially equal to atmospheric.
Umeda et al. teaches the process can be performed “in an atmospheric pressure state” (paragraph 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Coltro et al. to maintain atmospheric pressure within the chamber since the prior art recognizes heat treatment with steam can be performed at such a pressure, since the evidence of record does not indicate criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed pressure, and since the value would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization due to factors such as desired final characteristics of the particular type of cooked food, open or closed configuration of the chamber, and desired heating conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0338. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571)-270-3475. 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.
/BRYAN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
