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 .
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant is thanked for their June 10, 2026 response to the Office Action filed March 26, 2026. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly, claims 14-15, 17-19, and 21 have been amended and claims 16 and 23-26 have been cancelled. Claims 27-34 have been added. Claims 14-15, 17-22, and 27-34 are currently pending in this application.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previously set forth and the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) and that rejection is therefore withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments have also overcome the previous objection to claim 18 and that objection is therefore withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments in regards to the previous rejections of the claims under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103, filed June 10, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended independent claim 14, Applicant has argued that the cited references do not teach all of the limitations of the amended claim, particularly the newly added limitation that “each overflow sensor includes a temperature sensor disposed beneath and adjacent to an inner surface of the panel assembly”. In particular, Applicant has argued, in reference to the previous rejection of claim 16, that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found no motivation to combine the teachings of Lee and Lou in the manner proposed by the Office action because the proposed modification would change the principle of operation of Lee” (page 11 of Applicant’s remarks). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The overflow sensor of Lee is designed to detect an overflow by detecting a “temperature jump step” in the region of the panel surrounding the burner, indicating the sudden presence of high-temperature liquid on the panel (Lee paragraph [0049]). Lou, in solving a similar problem of measuring a temperature change of something on a cooktop panel, also teaches a temperature sensor designed to detect the temperature, and temperature change in particular, of an object located on the cooktop panel. Lou teaches that the temperature sensor may be located beneath and adjacent to the inner surface of the panel and can effectively measure changes in the temperature of the panel to determine changes in the temperature of the object located above the panel without direct contact with the object (Lou paragraph [0010]). Lou further teaches that there are advantages to locating the sensor below the panel rather than above the panel, in particular that the location below the panel protects the sensor from “harsh environmental factors such as oil stains, extending its lifespan” (Lou paragraph [0010]). One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lee and Lou before them, would readily see that the sensor placed below the panel in the manner taught by Lou could effectively sense the jump in temperature caused by the overflowing liquid on the panel, while being protected from exposure to the liquid. This does not change the principle of operation of Lee, as Applicant has argued, but merely moves the location of the sensor to a more protected location where it would continue to function in the same manner to detect a temperature jump caused by the overflowing liquid. Thus, the modification of Lee with Lou would not only not change the principle of operation of Lee, but it would be an obvious modification that would yield a predictable result with known advantages.
Furthermore, in response to Applicant’s argument on page 12 that “Lee’s thermocouple beneath a panel surface as taught by Lou fundamentally alters how, when, and what Lee’s thermocouple detects,” and that “this modification eliminates Lee’s disclosed overflow-detection mechanism and substitutes an entirely different sensing principle directed to dry-burn or overheating detection,” Examiner respectfully disagrees with this characterization. In both the teachings of Lee and Lou, and also in the present application being examined, the temperature sensor is fundamentally being used to measure temperature. Any further determination of overflow or other conditions based on the measured temperature is not a fundamental operation of the sensor, but is an operation of the controller. Thus, the modification of Lee with the temperature sensor of Lou does not change the principle of operation of overflow detection, which is performed by the controller, as the sensor would still be used for the same purpose, namely to measure the temperature jump at the location of the overflow.
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.
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 14-15, 17, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 106969387 by Lee et al (cited in previous Office Action and on previous PTO-892, hereinafter “Lee”) in view of EP 3462812 by Yusuf et al (cited in previous Office Action and on previous PTO-892, hereinafter “Yusuf”) and in further view of CN 108278638 by Lou et al (cited in previous Office Action and on previous PTO-892, hereinafter “Lou”).
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches a cooktop having overflow detection (Fig 1, paragraph [0019]), the cooktop comprising:
a gas burner (Fig 1 burner 11 of gas stove; paragraph [0002]);
a panel assembly disposed around the gas burner (Fig 3 upper shell 212);
an overflow sensor configured to detect an overflow state of a cooking utensil on the gas burner (Fig 1 overflow sensor 17), wherein each overflow sensor includes a temperature sensor (paragraph [0049]); and
a gas valve configured to adjust a flow rate of gas supplied to the gas burner at least partially based on the overflow state (Fig 1 gas valve assembly 12; paragraph [0049]).
But Lee does not teach that the cooktop comprises a plurality of overflow sensors or that the temperature sensor is disposed beneath and adjacent to an inner surface of the panel assembly.
However, Yusuf teaches a cooktop with overflow detection (Abstract, Fig 1), having a plurality of overflow sensors disposed around the heating element (Fig 1 overflow sensing elements 22/24//26/28 surround each respective heating region 12/14/16/18, shown with 4-8 sensors around surrounding each element).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooktop of Lee by increasing the number of overflow sensors so that a plurality of overflow sensors are surrounding the burner, in a manner similar to that taught by Yusuf, in order to provide more sensing locations for more accurate overflow detection. It is also noted that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04 VI-B).
Furthermore, Lou teaches a cooktop with a gas burner (Fig 1, paragraph [0002]) including a panel assembly comprising a panel main body and a fluid pan (Fig 1 panel 1 and liquid tray 3), and having temperature sensors concealed below the panel assembly and configured to measure the temperature of the fluid pan (Fig 2 temperature sensor 4, paragraph [0072]). Lou teaches that positioning the sensor to be concealed below the panel assembly avoids exposure to harsh environmental factors, such as oil, thus extending the lifespan of the sensor (paragraph [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooktop of Lee by positioning the overflow sensors (embodied as temperature sensors) such that they are concealed below the panel assembly, as taught by Lou, in order to protect the sensors from environmental factors, such as dirt and oil, that may shorten the lifespan of the sensors.
Regarding claim 15, Yusuf teaches that the plurality of overflow sensors includes three or more overflow sensors (Fig 1 overflow sensing elements 22/24//26/28 surround each respective heating region 12/14/16/18, shown with 4-8 sensors around surrounding each element).
Regarding claim 17, Lee, modified with Yusuf and Lou, teaches that the cooktop further comprises a controller (Lee Fig 5 controller 19; paragraph [0050]) configured to control the gas valve based on one or more signals from the plurality of overflow sensors (Lee paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 28, Lee teaches a cooktop having overflow detection (Fig 1, paragraph [0019]), the cooktop comprising:
a gas burner (Fig 1, burner 11 of gas stove; paragraph [0002]);
a panel assembly disposed around the gas burner (Fig 3, upper shell 212);
an overflow sensor configured to detect an overflow state of a cooking utensil on the gas burner(Fig 1 overflow sensor 17);
a gas valve configured to supply gas to the gas burner (Fig 1 gas valve assembly 12); and
a controller configured to adjust a flow rate of the gas at least partially based on one or more signals from the overflow sensor (Fig 5 controller 19; paragraph [0049]).
But Lee does not teach that the overflow sensor of the cooktop comprises a plurality of overflow sensors, that the temperature sensor is disposed beneath and adjacent to an inner surface of the panel assembly, or an adjustment assembly, comprising: a plurality of elastic structures each coupled to a respective overflow sensor and configured to bias the respective overflow sensor toward the lower surface of the panel assembly, and an adjustment mechanism coupled to the lower surface of the panel assembly and configured to adjust a distance between each overflow sensor and the lower surface of the panel assembly.
However, Yusuf teaches a cooktop with overflow detection (Abstract, Fig 1), having a plurality of overflow sensors disposed around the heating element (Fig 1 overflow sensing elements 22/24//26/28 surround each respective heating region 12/14/16/18, shown with 4-8 sensors around surrounding each element).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooktop of Lee by increasing the number of overflow sensors so that a plurality of overflow sensors are surrounding the burner, in a manner similar to that taught by Yusuf, in order to provide more sensing locations for more accurate overflow detection. It is also noted that mere duplication of parts has been held to have no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04 VI-B).
Furthermore, Lou teaches a cooktop with a gas burner (Fig 1, paragraph [0002]) including a panel assembly comprising a panel main body with a fluid pan (Fig 1 panel 1 with liquid tray 3), and having a temperature sensor concealed below the panel assembly and configured to measure the temperature of the panel in order to detect a temperature rise of an object on the panel (Fig 2 temperature sensor 4, paragraph [0075]). Lou further teaches an adjustment assembly, comprising: an elastic structure coupled to the sensor and configured to bias the sensor toward the lower surface of the panel assembly (Fig 2 support member 5; paragraph [0079]), and an adjustment mechanism coupled to the lower surface of the panel assembly and configured to adjust a distance between each overflow sensor and the lower surface of the panel assembly (Fig 2 fastener 6, which is coupled to the lower surface of the panel and, since it is a screw, also functions to adjust a distance between the sensor and the lower surface of the panel by tightening the screw; paragraph [0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooktop of Lee by positioning the overflow sensors (embodied as temperature sensors) such that they are concealed below the panel assembly, as taught by Lou. Since Lee teaches that the sensors detect an overflow by sensing a temperature change caused by liquids overflowing onto the panel, the modification would provide the same function while protecting the sensors from environmental factors, such as dirt and oil, that may shorten the lifespan of the sensors (Lou paragraph [0010]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooktop to include an adjustment assembly, comprising a plurality of elastic structures each coupled to a respective overflow sensor and configured to bias the respective overflow sensor toward the lower surface of the panel assembly, and an adjustment mechanism coupled to the lower surface of the panel assembly and configured to adjust a distance between each overflow sensor and the lower surface of the panel assembly. This would be advantageous in supporting the sensor for improved stability and to ensure the sensor fits effectively against the inner surface of the panel (Lou paragraphs [0077] and [0079]).
Regarding claim 29, Lou further teaches that the adjustment mechanism comprises a threaded fastener (Fig 2 fastener 6, which is a screw; paragraph [0085]).
Regarding claim 30, Lee, as modified by Yusuf and Lou, teaches the cooktop of claim28. See details in parent claim 28 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill to modify. Lee/Yusuf/Lou further teaches that the plurality of overflow sensors each comprise a temperature sensor (Lee teaches, in paragraph [0049], that the overflow sensor is a temperature sensor. The modification with Yusuf teaches that that there are a plurality of such sensors, as in Fig 1 of Yusuf.)
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Yusuf and Lou, as applied to claims 14-17 above, and in further view of CN 108679658 by Zhang (cited in previous Office Action and on previous PTO-892, hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 18, Lee, modified with Yusuf and Lou, teaches the cooktop of claim 17. See details in parent claim 17 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill to modify. But Lee/Yusuf/Lou does not teach that the cooktop further comprises a determining unit communicably coupled to the controller and configured to determine whether a user is present or absent; and wherein the controller is further configured to control the gas valve based on the determination by the determining unit whether the user is present or absent.
However, Zhang teaches a home appliance, such as a gas stove (paragraph [0004]), with overflow detection (paragraph [0006]), the cooktop comprising a determining unit communicably coupled to a controller and configured to detect the presence or absence of a person around the cooktop (infrared distance sensor, paragraph [0050]). Zhang further teaches that the controller is configured to control the gas valve based on the determination by the determining unit whether the user is present or absent (paragraph [0050]; paragraph [0067]). Zhang teaches that if users are present, they can determine an overflow situation themselves, but if no users are present the controller can determine the overflow condition and control the appliance based on the overflow condition (paragraph [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooktop of Lee/Yusuf/Lou by including a determining unit communicably coupled to the controller and configured to determine whether a user is present or absent, and configuring the controller to control the gas based on the determination by the determining unit whether the user is present or absent, as taught by Zhang. This would be advantageous in order to ensure that dangerous conditions from overflow events are minimized when a user is not present to manage the cooktop, but the user’s operations are not hindered when the user is present.
Regarding claim 19, Lee, as modified by Yusuf and Lou and Zhang, teaches the cooktop of claim 18. Zhang further teaches that the determining unit comprises a human body detection unit configured to detect whether a human user is present or absent based on detection of a human body (paragraph [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, having modified the cooktop of Lee/KR ‘930/ Yusuf ‘812 with the determining unit of Zhang, that the determining unit comprises a human body detection unit configured to detect whether a human user is present or absent based on detection of a human body.
Regarding claim 20, Lee, as modified by Yusuf and Lou and Zhang, teaches the cooktop of claim 19. Zhang further teaches that the human body detection unit comprises an infrared temperature sensor (paragraph [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, having modified the cooktop of Lee/Yusuf/Lou with the determining unit of Zhang, that the human body detection unit comprises an infrared temperature sensor.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Yusuf and Lou and Zhang, as applied to claim 18 above, and in further view of US 2016/0051078 by Jenkins et al (cited in previous Office Action and on previous PTO-892, hereinafter “Jenkins”).
Regarding claim 21, Lee, modified with Yusuf and Lou, teaches the cooktop of claim 18, including a detection unit configured to determine the presence of a person around the cooktop. See details in parent claim 18 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill to modify. But Lee/Yusuf/Lou does not teach that the determining unit comprises a position sensor disposed on a knob of the gas valve and configured to detect a positional change of the knob of the gas valve; and wherein the determining unit is configured to determine whether the user is present or absent based in part on an output of the position sensor.
However, Jenkins teaches a determining unit comprising a position sensor disposed on a knob of the gas valve and configured to detect a positional change of the knob of the gas valve so as to determine whether there is a person around the cooktop (Fig 14 position sensor, such as encoder 1257, on control knob 1240, which may be used on a gas cooking appliance; paragraph [0102], control system detects physical interaction by user and may disable automatic control of the control knob based on the detected interaction of a user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooktop of Lee/Yusuf/Lou/Zhang by including a position sensor in the determining unit, the sensor being disposed on a knob of the gas valve and configured to detect a positional change of the knob of the gas valve and configuring the determining unit to determine whether the user is present or absent based in part on an output of the position sensor, as taught by Jenkins. Such sensor could be used either in place of, or in addition to, the infrared sensor taught by Zhang to determine if a person is present to monitor or control the cooktop. A position sensor on the knob could be advantageous for reliably detecting the presence of an active user through interaction with the knob, particularly in conditions where an infrared sensor does not reliably detect a human presence, such as when the infrared sensor becomes dirty, or when a person is nearby but is not actively using or monitoring the cooktop.
Regarding claim 22, Jenkins further teaches that the position sensor comprises a resistor or an encoder (paragraph [0102]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, having modified the cooktop of Lee/Yusuf/Lou/Zhang with the position sensor of Jenkins, that the position sensor would comprise a resistor or encoder, as taught by Jenkins.
Claims 27 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Yusuf and Lou, as applied to claims 17 and 28 above, and in further view of KR 101183930 (cited in previous Office Action and on previous PTO-892, hereinafter “KR ‘930”).
Regarding claims 27 and 31 (similar limitations, different dependencies), Lee, modified with Yusuf and Lou, teaches the cooktop of claim 17 and claim 30. See details in parent claims 17 and 30 rejections above, including the motivation to modify with a plurality of overflow sensors. Lee further teaches that the signal from the overflow sensor comprises a measured temperature change from the temperature sensor and the controller is configured to control the gas valve and adjust the flow rate of the gas based on the temperature change (paragraph [0049]).
Yusuf further teaches that the one or more signals from the plurality of overflow sensors comprise a measured value from each respective sensor, and wherein the controller is further configured to: control the heating element based on how many of the measured values exceed a threshold value (paragraph [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, having modified the cooktop of Lee with Yusuf and Lou, including the plurality of overflow sensors, to control the gas valve based on how many of the measured temperature changes measured from the plurality of overflow sensors indicate an overflow condition. Since the modified cooktop includes a plurality of temperature measurement points surrounding the burner, it would be advantageous to configure the controller to determine an overflow condition based on the number of sensors that indicate an overflow condition. For example, to shut of the gas valve when one of the temperature measurement points indicate such a condition, even when all of the temperature measurement points do not indicate an overflow condition, in order to detect an overflow in any of the measurement areas. Alternatively, the cooktop may be set to a less sensitive condition, such as having the gas valve shut off when two of the sensors indicate an overflow condition, to avoid false alarms.
Lee/Yusuf/Lou teaches that the one or more signals from the overflow sensors comprise a measured “temperature jump step” indicative of a temperature change to determine an overflow condition (Lee paragraph [0049]).
Additionally or alternatively, KR ‘930 teaches stovetop comprising at least one burner, an overflow sensor configured to detect a temperature information of temperature measuring points, and a controller, wherein the controller is configured to calculate a value of the change in temperature of the temperature measurement points, to pre-store a temperature difference threshold, to compare a received temperature difference of the temperature measurement point with the temperature difference threshold, to calculate whether temperature differences exceed the temperature difference threshold, and to determine the overflow condition based on the difference (page 7 line 10-17; controller subtracts earlier detected temperature, T2, from a later detected temperature, T1, and compares calculated temperature change value, N, to reference temperature change value, n, to determine overflow condition).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooktop of Lee/Yusuf/Lou by using the known controller method of determining an overflow condition by calculating a temperature change taught by KR ‘930 in order to determine the overflow condition at each temperature measurement point, in particular that the overflow condition is calculated based on whether a measured temperature change exceeds a threshold temperature change, as taught by KR ‘930.
Claims 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Yusuf, Lou, and KR ‘930 as applied to claim 31 above, and in further view of Zhang.
Regarding claim 32, Lee/Yusuf/Lou/Kr ‘930 teaches the cooktop of claim 31. See details in parent claim 31 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill to modify.
But Lee/Yusuf/Lou/Kr ‘930 does not teach that the cooktop further comprises a determining unit configured to determine whether a user is present or absent; wherein the controller is configured to refrain from adjusting the flow rate of the gas when both (a) the user is determined to be present and (b) the measured temperature change of each respective temperature sensor exceeds the threshold temperature change.
However, Zhang teaches a home appliance, such as a gas stove (paragraph [0004]), with overflow detection (paragraph [0006]), the cooktop comprising a determining unit configured to determine whether a user is present or absent (paragraph [0050]). Zhang further teaches that the controller is configured to refrain from adjusting a flow rate of the gas when both (a) the user is determined to be present and (b) an overflow occurs (paragraph [0050], if users are determined to be present, it is assumed that the overflow detection and mitigation function is not necessary).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooktop of Lee/Yusuf/Lou/Kr ‘930 to include a determination unit configured to determine whether a user is present or absent and to configure the controller to refrain from adjusting the flow rate of the gas when both (a) the user is determined to be present and (b) the measured temperature change of each respective temperature sensor exceeds the threshold temperature change. This would be advantageous in order to ensure that the user’s operations are not hindered when the user is present, but could otherwise be automatically managed when a user is determined to be absent.
Regarding claim 33, Zhang further teaches that the controller is configured to adjust the flow rate of the gas when both (a) the user is determined to be absent and (b) an overflow condition is detected by an overflow sensor (paragraph [0050], if controller determines an absence of a user, controller begins overflow detection and the sensor is monitored for an overflow condition; if overflow condition is detected, the controller adjusts the gas flow to the burner, paragraph [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, having modified the cooktop of Lee/Yusuf/Lou/Kr ‘930 with the determination unit of Zhang, to configure the controller to adjust the flow rate of the gas when both (a) the user is determined to be absent and (b) the measured temperature change of each respective temperature sensor exceeds the stored threshold temperature change (indicating an overflow condition). This would be advantageous since, once an overflow condition is determined from the measured temperature change, the controller could automatically adjust the flow rate of the gas if a user is not present, thus minimizing dangerous conditions that may occur from overflow events.
Regarding claim 34, Zhang further teaches that the controller is configured to adjust the flow rate of the gas when an overflow condition is detected, irrespective of the presence or absence of the user (paragraph [0049], user can initiate overflow detection command from a user interface to initiate overflow detection and mitigation operations so that controller will monitor for overflow condition and initiate overflow alarm operation, in this case irrespective of user presence or absence; paragraph [0067], overflow alarm operation includes adjusting flow rate of gas).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, having modified the cooktop of Lee/Yusuf/Lou/Kr ‘930 with the determination unit of Zhang, to configure the controller to adjust the flow rate of the gas when at least one measured temperature change exceeds the stored threshold temperature change (indicating an overflow condition), irrespective of the presence or absence of the user. This would be advantageous for allowing an operation of the cooktop wherein an overflow condition is automatically detected and mitigation operations are performed whether or not a user is present, for example, when a user indicates a desire for automatic detection and/or the user is present but is not actively monitoring the cooktop.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2003/0024923 by Gratz et al teaches a temperature sensor located beneath a cooktop.
US 4,447,710 issued to McWilliams, teaches a thermocouple positioned beneath a cooktop panel and used to measure the temperature of an object on the panel.
DE 19604306 by Hecht et al teaches a temperature sensor positioned beneath and adjacent to a cooktop panel, wherein the temperature sensor comprises a thermocouple and an elastic structure biasing the sensor toward the lower surface of the panel.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 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 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 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 Amy E Carter whose telephone number is (703)756-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMY E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights