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 .
Specification
The amendment to the Specification filed 11/28/2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date (See 35 U.S.C. 132(a)). An international application designating the U.S. has two stages (international and national) with the filing date being the same in both stages. See MPEP 1893.03(b) and 35 U.S.C. 363. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
“CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED PATENT APPLICATIONS”
“[1] This application is a U.S. National Stage Application under 35 U.S.C. §371 of PCT Application No. PCT/KR2022/007574, filed May 27, 2022, which claims priority to Korean Patent Application Nos. 10-2021-0069399, filed May 28, 2021 and 10-2021-0105139, filed August 10, 2021, whose entire disclosures are hereby incorporated by reference.”
The incorporation by reference of the international application PCT/KR2022/00574 and of the Korean Patent Applications 10-2021-0069399 and 10-2021-0105139 is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of the associated PCT, in this case 05/27/2022, See MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the Specification amendment of 11/28/2023 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because lines 1 and 2 speak to the purported merits of the claimed invention through the recitation of "may increase the cooling efficiency of a heat sink". A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 13 recites the claim limitation of “a second area which is bent in an upward-downward direction” in line 4. The specification provides in [0047] that an “upward-downward direction” denotes an upward-downward direction of an electric range in a state in which the electric range is installed for use. Examiner will interpret this to mean the second area can be bent either in an upwards or downwards direction relative to the top cooking surface of the electric range.
Claims 12, 13, 14, and 15 recites the limitation of a “communication pathway”. This limitation occurs in line 2 of Claim 12, line 3 of Claim 13, line 5 of Claim 14, and line 3 of Claim 15. Examiner will interpret a communication pathway to mean the there is a common piece of the air guide section shared between the areas that connects the areas together.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first side of the heat sink" in lines 6, 7, and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because Claim 4 is dependent on Claim 1, where a first side of the heat sink has only been previously introduced in Claim 2.
Claim 4 further recites the limitation of “a third side of the heat sink”, where a second side of the heat sink is introduced later in dependent Claim 6. A first side of the heat sink is introduced in Claim 2, where Claim 4 and 6 are not dependent on Claim 2. Examiner asks applicant to indicate whether a first and second side of the heat sink are inherently required; or if the use of a first, second, and third side is part of a naming convention for the sides of the heat sink.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasuo (JP-2004/087305-A).
Regarding Claim 1, Yasuo teaches (Figures 1-26) an electric range (induction heating cooker, [0001]), comprising: a heater (radiant heater (RH), induction heater (IH), [0018]-[0020]); a printed circuit board (wiring board (22a, 22b)) on which a plurality of electronic devices (Figs 5, 6, 10, 11, first circuit components (28), second circuit components (30), [0019]-[0021]) are provided; a heat sink (heat sink (32), cooling fins (33)) which is provided on the printed circuit board (Fig 4); an air blower fan (blower fan (27)) which discharges air; and an air guide (fan hood (26)) which is provided around one or more electronic devices of the plurality of electronic device and the heat sink; communicates with the air blower fan, and forms a flow path to guide the air discharged from the air blower fan (Figs 3, 10, 13, 19); wherein the flow path of the air includes a first flow path which cools the heat sink and a second flow path which cools the one or more electronic devices (Figs 10-13, 19, partition wall (40), wall portion (41), top plate (4), end wall (44), rear wall (56a and 56b), side wall (46), intake ports (34a, 34b), chambers (24a, 24b), cooling devices (20a, 20b), air flow direction (arrow A and B), [0029]-[0032]).
Regarding Claim 2, Yasuo teaches the electric range of Claim 1, wherein the air blower fan discharges the air toward a first side of the heat sink (airflow direction (arrow A), heat sink (32), cooling fins (33)), a first portion of the air discharged toward the first side of the heat sink flows into the first flow path, a second portion of the air discharged toward the first side of the heat sink flows into the second flow path (Figs 10-13, 19, [0028]-[0030]).
Regarding Claim 3, Yasuo teaches the electric range of Claim 2, further comprising a vane (wall portion (41)) which is positioned at a location where the air blower fan and the air guide communicate (Figs 10 & 11), and guides the flow path of the air discharged from the air blower fan, wherein the flow path of the air is divided into the first flow path and the second flow path based on the vane ([0029]-[0032]).
Regarding Claim 5, Yasuo teaches the electric range of Claim 1, further comprising: an upper bracket (top plate (25)) which supports the heater; and a base bracket (bottom plate (38)) which is positioned below the upper bracket and on which the printed circuit board and the air blower fan are provided ([0029], Figs 11 & 14).
Regarding Claim 11, Yasuo teaches (Figs 1-26) an electric range (induction heating cooker [0001]), comprising: a heater ((radiant heater (RH), induction heater (IH), [0018]-[0020])); a base bracket (bottom plate (38)) on which a printed circuit board (wiring board (22a and 22b)) is provided, and electronic device being provided on the printed circuit board (Figs 5, 6, 10, 11, first circuit components (28), second circuit components (30), [0019]-[0021]); a heat sink (heat sink (32), cooling fins (33)) which is provided on the printed circuit board; an air blower fan (blower fan (27)) which is provided on the base bracket and discharges air; and an air guide (fan hood (26)) which is provided around the electronic device and the heat sink, communicates with the air blower fan (Figs 3, 10, 13, 19), and forms a flow path to guide the air discharged from the air blower fan, wherein the air guide includes a first guide section and a second air guide section protruding from a side of the first guide section, the heat sink is positioned on the first air guide section, and the electronic device is positioned in the second air guide section (Figs 10-13, 19, partition wall (40), wall portion (41), top plate (4), end wall (44), rear wall (56a and 56b), side wall (46), intake ports (34a, 34b), chambers (24a, 24b), cooling devices (20a, 20b), air flow direction (arrow A and B), [0029]-[0032]).
Regarding Claim 12, Yasuo teaches the electric range of Claim 11, wherein a communication pathway (wall portion (41)) communicating with an exit of the air blower fan (blower fan (27)) is formed in the air guide section (fan hood (26)), and the second air guide section communicates with the first air guide section through one side of the first air guide section (Figs 11 & 13).
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.
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.
Claims 4, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuo in view of Kunihiko (JP-2007-234623-A).
Regarding Claim 4, Yasuo teaches all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim that the first electronic device is mounted on a first region of the printed circuit board, where the first region is located in a direction extending outwards from a third side of the heat sink that is adjacent and perpendicular to the first side of the heat sink.
Regarding Claim 6, Yasuo teaches all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim that the second electronic device is mounted on a second region of the printed circuit board, where the second region is located in the direction extending outward from the third side of the heat sink, and is close to second side of the heat sink than the first region of the printed circuit board, where the second side of the heat sink is opposite the first side of the heat sink.
Regarding Claim 8, Yasuo teaches all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim that the third electronic device is mounted on a third region of the printed circuit board, where the third region is located between the first and second regions of the printed circuit board.
Regarding Claim 10, Yasuo teaches all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, including the cooling fins (33) of the heat sink (32) extending parallel along a longitudinal direction of the heat sink (Fig 5 and 6), where the electronic devices are cooled by the air flowing through the first flow path, but fails to specifically claim that the electronic devices are attached to an outer surface of the heat sink.
Kunihiko teaches (Figures 1 - 10) an electromagnetic cooker where low heat generating components (34) and high heat generating components (36) and heat sinks (38a and 38b) as part of electric circuit unit (30) (Modified Fig 2, [0001], [0029]-[0030]). Kunihiko further teaches that the electric circuit unit can be divided into distinct first, second, and third regions originating from the heat sinks, where airflow is generated over the heat sinks by cooling blower (40) and ventilation fan (20), where the low het generating components (34) are positioned offset of the heat sink and the high heat generating elements are mounted on the heat sink to be cooled by the air flowing through the heat sink (Modified Fig 2, [0029]-[0033]).
PNG
media_image1.png
780
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is obvious to combine prior is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Yasuo teaches the electric heating device with a heater, a printed circuit board with multiple electronic devices attached to the circuit board, along with an air blower fan and an air guide. Yasuo further teaches a first and second air flow path, where a vane guides air to either side to cool the electronic devices along the air flow path. Kunihiko teaches the printed circuit board being broken into multiple regions along the longitudinal length of the heat sink (Modified Fig 2), with each section having its own respective high and low heat generating electronic devices, where the low heat generating components are offset from the heat sinks and the high heat generating components are attached to the outer surface of the heat sink to be cooled by the air flow passing through the heat sink.
An artisan of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to combine the electric induction heating cooker device taught by Yasuo, including the heater, the heat sink, air blower, air guide with multiple air flow paths created by a vane to guide air towards electronic components that need cooling, and to incorporate the electromagnetic cooker with a printed circuit board and a heat sink that has multiple regions and various cooled electronic devices, including electronic devices mounted to the heat sink, as taught by Kunihiko, because the known elements would retain their respective functions and yield predictable results when combined into a single heating device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the induction heating cooker taught by Yasuo to incorporate the electromagnetic cooker taught by Kunihiko because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuo and Kunihiko in view of Lee (KR-2021-0006809-A).
Regarding Claim 7, Yasuo and Kunihiko teach all of the elements of the claimed invention as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim a snubber capacitor.
Regarding Claim 9, Yasuo and Kunihiko teach all of the elements of the claimed invention as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim a shunt resistor.
Lee teaches (Figs 1-5) an induction heating device having improved temperature sensing mechanism ([0001]). Lee further teaches the use of a switch unit (SWP) that is connected between a working coil (WC) and a snubber capacitor unit (CSP), where a shunt resistor (SR) is connected to the other side of the switch unit ([0072]-[0074] & [0077]-[0080]). Lee further teaches that the voltage distributed to the shunt resistor can be used to calculate the resistance and voltage going to the working coil ([0098] & [0130]). Lee also teaches that the snubber capacitor can be used to remove electromagnetic wave noise ([0067]).
It is obvious to combine prior is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Yasuo teaches the electric cooking device with a heater and a printed circuit board with electronic devices, along with a heat sink, air blower and air guide, as well as a first and second air discharge path separated by a vane, that provides air to the multiple sides of the heat sink as well as the other electronic devices to cool said electronic devices. Kunihiko teaches the printed circuit board divided into a first, second, and third region, where the third region separates the first and second region on a perpendicular third side of the heat sink compared to the first and second side (See Modified Fig 12 (JP2007234623A)). Kunihiko further teaches the use of low and high heat generating electrical devices divided across the regions of the printed circuit board. Lee teaches the use of a shunt resistor and snubber capacitor in the circuit that drives the heater elements. An artisan of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to combine the heating device as taught by Yasuo, with the heater and printed circuit board layout as taught in Kunihiko, and implemented a shunt resistor and snubber capacitor as detailed by Lee, because the known elements would retain their respective functions and yield predictable results when combined into a single electric cooking range device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the induction heating cooker taught by Yasuo, with the electromagnetic cooker with the printed circuit board regions taught by Kunihiko and snubber capacitor and shunt resistor taught by Lee, because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuo in view of Miyahara (US-2009/0183865-A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Yasuo teaches all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim that the first air guide section includes a first area where the communication pathway is formed; a second area which is bent in an upward-downward direction of the base bracket and guides the air to be discharged; a third area that extends from the first area and changes a flow direction of the air passing through the first area; and a fourth area which extends from the third area, and communicates with the second area, and changes a flow direction of the air passing through the third area.
Regarding Claim 14, Yasuo teaches all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, including the electronic devices that includes a first, second, and third electronic devices; but fails to specifically claim that the second air guide section includes a fifth area which is formed adjacent to the communication pathway and on which the first electronic device is provided, a sixth area on which a first portion of the second electronic device is provided, and a seventh area which connects the fifth area and the sixth area and on which a second portion of the second electronic device and the third electronic device are provided, and a fifth, sixth, and seventh areas are in communication with each other.
Regarding Claim 15, Yasuo teaches all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim that first area of the first air guide includes the communication pathway; and the fifth, sixth, and seventh areas protrude from one side of the first area, the sixth and seventh areas are stepped from the first area.
Regarding Claim 16, Yasuo teaches all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim that the air guide includes a pair of side walls, and an upper wall coupled to an upper end of the pair of side walls, and each of the first guide section and the second air guide section is defined by the respective portions of the side walls and upper wall.
Regarding Claim 17, Yasuo teaches all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim that a portion of the side walls defining the fifth area and a portion of the side walls defining the sixth area ae connected through a portion of the side walls defining the seventh area, and the portion of the side walls defining the seventh area is inclined.
Regarding Claim 18, Yasuo teaches all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim that a portion of the side wall defining the sixth area is bent form an end portion of the sixth area to be inclined and is connected to a portion of the side walls defining the first area.
Regarding Claim 19, Yasuo teaches all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim that a portion of the upper wall defining the sixth area and has a height lower than a portion of the upper wall defining the first air guide section, and is connected to the portion of the upper wall defining the first air guide portion through an upper wall connection region.
Regarding Claim 20, Yasuo teaches all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim that the upper wall connection region has a curved and inclined shape.
Miyahara teaches (Figures 1-9) a cooling duct and electronic apparatus where a cooling duct (130) is used with a cooling fan (110A, 110B), along with heat sinks (121A, 121B) to dissipate heat from large heat generating elements ([0027]-[0028]). Miyahara further teaches that the cooling duct includes intake vents (201A, 201B), guiding units (202A, 202B) to guide the air flow (air flow direction arrows (241, 242, 243, 244, 245) through the cooling duct towards the heat generating elements to improve cooling efficiency ([0055]). The substrate (120) includes medium sized ICs (154-159) mounted under and cooled via the heat sinks (141A, 141B), and large ICs (151-153) which are cooled by a branch pipe from cooling duct (130) (Fig 3, [0032]-[0033]). Miyahara also teaches the branch discharge vents (233A, 233B) and branch pipes (230A, 230B), that includes internal branch pipes (231A, 231B) and external branch pipes (232A, 232B), along with discharge vents (203A, 203B) and branch vents (204A, 204B) ([0043]-[0044]). The cooling duct (130) of Miyahara can be broken up into a first (Fig 6, 201B), and second (Fig 7, 201A) guide sections, where the first guide section can further be broken into four (4) different areas (See Modified Fig 6), the first area also includes a communication pathway that connects the two sections (Fig 6), the second area is bent at an upward or downward direction and guides the air to be discharged, a third area extending from the first area and changes a flow direction of the air passing through, and a fourth area extending from a third area and communicates with the second area and changes a flow direction of the air in the area (Modified Fig 6). The second air guide section can also be broken into different areas; including a fifth, sixth, and seventh area (See Modified Fig 8). The fifth area is formed adjacent to the communicating wall that separates the first and second guide section and includes the first electronic device, the sixth area includes a first portion of a second electronic device, and the seventh area connects the fifth and sixth area and includes a second portion of the second electronic device, where the fifth through seventh areas are in communication with each other (See Modified Fig 8). Miyahara further teaches that the air guiding units (202A, 202B) of the cooling duct (130) include side walls and an upper wall that connects the side walls (Fig 1). Additionally, Miyahara teaches the portion of the side walls defining the fifth and sixth area are connected through a portion of the side walls, which are connected together through the side wall that defines the seventh area (See Modified Fig 8). Furthermore, Miyahara teaches that the portion of the side wall defining the sixth area is bent and is also connected to the side wall defining the first area, additionally the upper wall of the sixth area has a lower height than the upper wall portion of the first air guide area. (See Modified Figs 6, 7, and 8). Miyahara additionally teaches that the upper wall connection region has a curved and inclined shape (See Modified Fig 7).
PNG
media_image2.png
870
1388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
902
1291
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
844
1372
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It is obvious to combine prior is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Yasuo teaches the induction cooking device, including a heater, a bracket with a printed circuit board and electronic devices attached to the circuit board, a heat sink also attached to the printed circuit board, that is fed air from an air blower fan and air guide that surrounds the electronic devices and heat sink, and has first and second air guide section coming from the fan that are in connected to each other via a partition wall. Miyahara teaches a cooling duct, with side walls and upper wall, configured to cool heat generating elements that includes two different guide sections as part of the cooling duct, where the individual guide sections can incorporate upward and downward bends to change the air flow direction of the air provided by the blower fan at the intake vent. Miyahara also teaches the guide sections are in communication with each other, as the two guide sections share a common wall between as part of the same cooling duct. Miyahara and Yasuo are analogous inventions because both inventions include cooling solutions for electronic devices that generate heat, where air is fed through a duct from a blower or fan and passes over a heat sink and the heat generating electronic devices. An artisan of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to combine the induction cooking device with heater and electronic components mounted to a circuit board as taught by Yasuo, with the cooling duct and air guides for electronic apparatuses as taught by Miyahara, because the known elements would retain their respective functions and yield predictable results when combined into a single cooling device for electronic devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic cooking device taught by Yasuo with the cooling solution taught by Miyahara, because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Leonardi (US-2016/0323938-A1) teaches a cooling system for an induction hob, where airflow is generated via an air blower and is deflected to send the airflow in different direction to cool the electronics of the hob.
Kim (US-10980156-B2) teaches a heating device with an improved cooling structure, where fans force air from an inlet over heat sinks configured to dissipate heat.
Leija (US-6462948-B1) teaches a system and method for cooling multiple microprocessors on a circuit board, where a cooling system utilizes a blower, an air duct with multiple channels, and heat sinks to cool the electronic components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER HEMMINGS whose telephone number is (571)467-0070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Ned Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/HUNTER G HEMMINGS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights