9DETAILED 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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 3-13 are pending. Claims 2 and 14-20 have been canceled. Claims 1 and 3-6 have been amended. By virtue of dependency, the scope of the all the claims have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In regards to applicant’s remarks on 12/30/2025 on page 8 of the remarks submitted, the office makes note of the reasoning provided, however, the interpretation remains pursuant to the statues cited below.
Applicant is encouraged to amend the claim language from “control unit” to –controller--. Although applicant’s instant application is silent to the term --controller,-- the specification provides implicit support for a controller in paragraph [0058] of the written specification and Figure 6.
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.
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 limitation(s) is/are: control unit in claims 1 and 3-13.
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.
Claim limitation “control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The written disclosure as well as the ratings fail to disclose and structure that could comprise the control unit. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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, 4-6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuno (JP 2018151089 A) in view of Nakai et al. (US 2015/013574 A1), hereafter referred to as “Nakai.”
Regarding Claim 1: Kikuno teaches a refrigerator (see Figure 2) comprising: a cabinet (1) that forms a storage space (3) and a machine room (5); a compressor (14, 24) this is provided in the machine room (see Figure 2) and is configured to compress a refrigerant (functional limitation); a condenser (15, 25 of 33) that is provided in the machine room (5) and is configured to condense the refrigerant received from the compressor (functional limitation); an output pipe (20, 30) that is fluidly connected to the condenser (15, 25 of 33) and configured to discharge the refrigerant from the condenser (see Figure 3); a blower fan unit (39) that forces an air inside the machine room (5) and includes a blower fan housing (35) defining an opened blower hole (hole of 35) and a blower fan blade (fan blade of 39, see Figure 4) rotatably mounted on the blower fan housing (35): a sensor (41, 42) that is configured to measure a temperature at the output pipe (see Figure 3) and is located outside an area corresponding to the blower hole (see Figures 3-4); and a control unit (31).
Kikuno fails to teach wherein the control unit is configured to: in response to determining that the measured temperature is within a first range that is less than a first reference temperature, perform a normal mode that includes operating the compressor at a first frequency, and in response to determining that the measured temperature is within a second range that is greater than or equal to the first reference temperature and less than a second reference temperature, perform a first protection mode that includes operating the compressor at a second frequency that is lower than the first frequency.
Nakai teaches a control unit (40) is configured to: in response to determining that a measured temperature is within a first range that is less than a first reference temperature, perform a normal mode that includes operating a compressor (31) at a first frequency, and in response to determining that a measured temperature is within a second range that is greater than or equal to the first reference temperature and less than a second reference temperature, perform a first protection mode that includes operating the compressor at a second frequency that is lower than the first frequency (paragraphs [0062]-[0077], see Figures 3-5a, 5b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the control unit is configured to: in response to determining that the measured temperature is within a first range that is less than a first reference temperature, perform a normal mode that includes operating the compressor at a first frequency, and in response to determining that the measured temperature is within a second range that is greater than or equal to the first reference temperature and less than a second reference temperature, perform a first protection mode that includes operating the compressor at a second frequency that is lower than the first frequency to the structure of Kikuno as taught by Nakai in order to advantageously provide protection controls to the compressor based on temperature parameters (see Nakai, paragraph [0019]).
Regarding Claim 4: Kikuno modified supra fails to teach wherein the second frequency is 40 Hz or more and 50 Hz or less.
However, Kikuno modified supra teaches operating the compressor at various speeds and frequencies (Kikuno, page 3 of the machine translation). Thus, the specific frequency is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is an improved efficiency of operating the system based on system demands (Kikuno, page 3 of the machine translation).
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide wherein the second frequency is 40 Hz or more and 50 Hz or less in order to achieve efficient operation of the system. Furthermore, the ratios and ranges is recognized by the Examiner to be a very broad range, and a range that would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and 2144.05 I, II A and B.
Regarding Claim 5: Kikuno modified supra fails to teach wherein the first protection mode is performed for a first protection time, and wherein the first protection time is 150 minutes or more and 210 minutes or less.
However, Kikuno modified supra teaches operating the compressor at various speeds and frequencies for specific time intervals (Kikuno, page 3 of the machine translation). Thus, the specific a first protection time is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is an improved efficiency of operating the system based on system demands (Kikuno, page 3 of the machine translation).
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide wherein the first protection mode is performed for a first protection time, and wherein the first protection time is 150 minutes or more and 210 minutes or less in order to achieve efficient operation of the system. Furthermore, the ratios and ranges is recognized by the Examiner to be a very broad range, and a range that would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and 2144.05 I, II A and B.
Regarding Claim 6: Kikuno modified supra fails to teach wherein the control unit is configured to: in response to determining that the measured temperature is in a third range that is greater than or equal to the second reference temperature, perform a second protection mode that includes operating the compressor at a third frequency lower than the second frequency.
Nakai teaches a control unit (40) is configured to: in response to determining that a measured temperature is in a third range that is greater than or equal to a second reference temperature, perform a second protection mode that includes operating a compressor (31) at a third frequency lower than a second frequency (paragraphs [0062]-[0077], see Figures 3-5a, 5b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the control unit is configured to: in response to determining that the measured temperature is in a third range that is greater than or equal to the second reference temperature, perform a second protection mode that includes operating the compressor at a third frequency lower than the second frequency to the structure of Kikuno modified supra as taught by Nakai in order to advantageously provide protection controls to the compressor based on temperature parameters (see Nakai, paragraph [0019]).
Regarding Claim 9: Kikuno modified supra fails to teach wherein the first reference temperature is less than the second reference temperature, wherein the first reference temperature is 65° C. or more and less than 75° C., and wherein the second reference temperature is 70° C. or more and less than 80° C.
However, Kikuno modified supra teaches operating the compressor at various speeds and frequencies for specific time intervals with different protection control utilizing determination temperatures (Nakai, paragraph [0065]). Thus, the specific first reference temperature and second reference temperature is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is an improved efficiency of operating the system based on system protection control (Nakai, paragraph [0065]).
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide wherein the first reference temperature is less than the second reference temperature, wherein the first reference temperature is 65° C. or more and less than 75° C., and wherein the second reference temperature is 70° C. or more and less than 80° C in order to achieve efficient operation of the system. Furthermore, the ratios and ranges is recognized by the Examiner to be a very broad range, and a range that would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and 2144.05 I, II A and B.
Regarding Claim 10: Kikuno modified supra fails to teach wherein the third frequency is 0 Hz.
However, Kikuno modified supra teaches operating the compressor at various speeds and frequencies (Kikuno, page 3 of the machine translation). Thus, the specific frequency is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is an improved efficiency of operating the system based on system demands (Kikuno, page 3 of the machine translation).
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide wherein the third frequency is 0 Hz in order to achieve efficient operation of the system. Furthermore, the ratios and ranges is recognized by the Examiner to be a very broad range, and a range that would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and 2144.05 I, II A and B.
Claims 3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as Kikuno (JP 2018151089 A) in view of Nakai et al. (US 2015/013574 A1), hereafter referred to as “Nakai,” as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Kitagishi et al. (US 2010/0218527 A1), hereafter referred to as “Kitagishi.”
Regarding Claim 3: Kikuno modified supra fails to teach wherein the control unit is configured to: perform the normal mode further in response to determining that a time during which the measured temperature is within the second range is less than a first period, and perform the first protection mode further in response to determining that the time during which the measured temperature is within the second range is greater than or equal to the first period.
Kitagishi teaches a control unit (50, 60) is configured to: perform a normal mode further in response to determining that a time during which a measured temperature is within a second range is less than a first period, and perform a first protection mode further in response to determining that the time during which the measured temperature is within the second range is greater than or equal to the first period (paragraph [0024]-[0025]; [0029];paragraphs [0112]-[0118], see Figures 1-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the control unit is configured to: perform the normal mode further in response to determining that a time during which the measured temperature is within the second range is less than a first period, and perform the first protection mode further in response to determining that the time during which the measured temperature is within the second range is greater than or equal to the first period to the structure of Kikuno modified supra as taught by Kitagishi in order to advantageously provide protection controls to the compressor based on temperature parameters (see Kitagishi, paragraph [0012]).
Regarding Claim 7: Kikuno modified supra fails to teach wherein the second protection mode is performed for a second protection time, and wherein the control unit is configured to: count a number of times that the second protection mode is consecutively performed, in response to determining that the number of times that the second protection mode is consecutively performed corresponds to a reference repetition number, perform the third protection mode that includes operating the compressor at the third frequency for a third protection time longer than the second protection time.
Kitagishi teaches wherein a second protection mode is performed for a second protection time, and wherein a control unit (50, 60) is configured to: count a number of times that the second protection mode is consecutively performed, in response to determining that the number of times (paragraph [0024]-[0025] and [0029]) that the second protection mode is consecutively performed corresponds to a reference repetition number, perform a third protection mode that includes operating a compressor (11) at a third frequency for a third protection time longer than the second protection time (paragraphs [0112]-[0118], see Figures 1-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein managing the operating frequency of the compressor based on the temperature further includes: controlling the compressor to operate at the first frequency further in response to determining that a time during which the temperature is greater than or equal to the first reference temperature and less than the second reference temperature is less than a first period, and controlling the compressor to operate at the second frequency further in response to determining that the time during which the temperature is greater than or equal to the first reference temperature and less than the second reference temperature is greater than or equal to the first period to the structure of Kikuno modified supra as taught by Kitagishi in order to advantageously provide protection controls to the compressor based on temperature parameters (see Kitagishi, paragraph [0012]).
Regarding Claim 8: Kikuno modified supra fails to teach wherein the second protection time is 15 minutes or more and 25 minutes or less, and wherein the third protection time is 100 minutes or more and 140 minutes or less.
However, Kikuno modified supra teaches operating the compressor at various speeds and frequencies for specific time intervals (Kikuno, pages 3-4 of the machine translation). Thus, the specific a second protection time is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is an improved efficiency of operating the system based on system demands (Kikuno, pages 3-4 of the machine translation).
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide wherein the second protection time is 15 minutes or more and 25 minutes or less, and wherein the third protection time is 100 minutes or more and 140 minutes or less in order to achieve efficient operation of the system. Furthermore, the ratios and ranges is recognized by the Examiner to be a very broad range, and a range that would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and 2144.05 I, II A and B.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuno (JP 2018151089 A) in view of Nakai et al. (US 2015/013574 A1), hereafter referred to as “Nakai,” as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2011/0175742 A1), hereafter referred to as “Shin.”
Regarding Claim 11: Kikuno modified supra fails to teach further comprising: a display configured to output an indication of a current state of the refrigerator, wherein the control unit is configured to: in response to performing at least one of the first protection mode or the second protection mode is performed, control the display to output a warning message.
Shin teaches a display (109) configured to output an indication of a current state of a refrigerator (100), wherein a control unit (101) is configured to: in response to performing at least one of a first protection mode or a second protection mode is performed (paragraph [0181]), control the display to output a warning message (via alarm 141, paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a display configured to output an indication of a current state of the refrigerator, wherein the control unit is configured to: in response to performing at least one of the first protection mode or the second protection mode is performed, control the display to output a warning message to the structure of Kikuno modified supra as taught by Shin in order to advantageously provide to alert the user of system operations to prevent disruptions (see Shin, paragraph [0095]).
Regarding Claim 12: Kikuno modified supra fails to teach wherein the control unit is configured to: in response to performing at least one of the first protection mode or the second protection mode, control the refrigerator to output a warning sound.
Shin teaches a control unit (101) is configured to: in response to performing at least one of a first protection mode or a second protection mode (paragraph [0181]), control a refrigerator (100) to output a warning sound (via alarm 141, paragraphs [0025] and [0181]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the control unit is configured to: in response to performing at least one of the first protection mode or the second protection mode, control the refrigerator to output a warning sound to the structure of Kikuno modified supra as taught by Shin in order to advantageously provide to alert the user of system operations to prevent disruptions (see Shin, paragraph [0095]).
Regarding Claim 13: Kikuno modified supra fails to teach wherein the control unit is configured to: in response to performing at least one of the first protection mode or the second protection mode, control the refrigerator to output a warning message to a user terminal device connected to the refrigerator.
Shin teaches a control unit (101) is configured to: in response to performing at least one of a first protection mode or a second protection mode (paragraph [0181]), control a refrigerator (100) to output a warning message to a user terminal device (paragraph [0110]) connected to the refrigerator (100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the control unit is configured to: in response to performing at least one of the first protection mode or the second protection mode, control the refrigerator to output a warning message to a user terminal device connected to the refrigerator to the structure of Kikuno modified supra as taught by Shin in order to advantageously provide to alert the user of system operations to prevent disruptions (see Shin, paragraph [0095]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. McSweeney (US 2009/0094997 A1).
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 KIRSTIN U OSWALD whose telephone number is (571)270-3557. The examiner can normally be reached 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. M-F.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/KIRSTIN U OSWALD/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights