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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 06/17/2026. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn. Furthermore, the previous 35 USC 112 rejections have also been withdrawn. Claims 1-20 remain pending for consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, the claims recite “determine/determining, based on the ambient humidity and a constant ambient pressure, a dewpoint temperature where sweat will be produced on an outer surface of the refrigerator appliance” which renders the claim indefinite. A person skilled in the art would recognize that at a constant ambient pressure, ambient humidity alone does not uniquely determine the dew point temperature because the same ambient humidity can correspond to different dew point temperatures depending on the ambient temperature. Thus, it is unclear how the disclosed “controller” can determine the dew point temperature based on the “ambient humidity” and the “constant ambient pressure” without the ambient temperature. More clarity is requested.
Claims 2-14 and 16-19 are also rejected due to dependency.
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 1-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marutani et al. (JP2014020715A, herein after referred to as Marutani), in view of Allard et al. (US 20230105421 A1, herein after referred to as Allard), in view of Liu et al. (CN111457666A, herein after referred to as Liu), and in further view of Fang et al. (CN115900180A, herein after referred to as Fang).
Regarding claim 1, Marutani teaches a refrigerator appliance (refrigerator 10 Fig. 1) defining a vertical direction (the height direction of refrigerator 10 Fig. 1), a lateral direction (the width direction of refrigerator 10 Fig. 1), and a transverse direction (the depth direction of refrigerator 10 Fig. 1), comprising: a cabinet (cabinet 12 Fig. 1) defining a chilled chamber (small freezer compartment 18 Fig. 1); an icemaker (a person skilled in the art would recognize that the disclosed “ice making chamber” in paragraph [0014] would be provided with an icemaker); a sealed system (refrigeration cycle 60 Fig. 2) for regulating a chamber temperature (corresponds to the temperature of small freezer compartment 18 Fig. 1) within the chilled chamber (paragraph [0029]); an ambient humidity sensor (humidity sensor 48 Fig. 1); and a controller (main control unit 76 Fig. 3) in operative communication with the icemaker, the sealed system, and the ambient humidity sensor (Fig. 3), the controller being configured to: obtain an ambient humidity (paragraph [0033]) using the ambient humidity sensor (paragraph [0033]); determine sweat (disclosed “dew condensation” in paragraphs [0036] and [0037]) will be produced on an outer surface of the refrigerator appliance (paragraph [0037]); determine a target temperature (understood to be any temperature within -24 and -20 degrees Celsius as described in paragraph [0036]); operate the sealed system to regulate the chamber temperature to the target temperature (paragraph [0036]).
Marutani teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the controller being configured to: determine a dewpoint temperature where the sweat will be produced; determine the target temperature that maintains an outer surface temperature to be equal or greater than the dewpoint temperature”.
However, Allard teaches a controller (controller 140 Fig. 7 corresponds to the controller of Marutani) being configured to: determine a dewpoint temperature (temperature Td in paragraph [0038]) where sweat (the disclosed “condensation” in paragraph [0038] corresponds to the sweat of Marutani) will be produced (paragraph [0038]); determine a target temperature (understood to be any temperature above the disclosed “threshold temperature” in paragraph [0040]) that maintains an outer surface temperature (disclosed temperature Txr in paragraph [0040]) to be greater than the dewpoint temperature (paragraph [0040]) to keep moisture from developing on the exterior surface of the refrigerator (paragraph [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Marutani to include “the controller being configured to: determine a dewpoint temperature where the sweat will be produced; determine the target temperature that maintains an outer surface temperature to be equal or greater than the dewpoint temperature” in view of the teachings of Allard to keep moisture from developing on the exterior surface of the refrigerator.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the dewpoint temperature is determined based on the ambient humidity and a constant ambient pressure”.
However, Liu teaches a dewpoint temperature (dew point temperature Td in paragraph [52] corresponds to the dewpoint temperature of Allard) is determined based on an ambient humidity (paragraph [52]) and a constant ambient pressure (paragraph [52]) to determine the temperature at which the air reaches saturation (paragraph [52]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the dewpoint temperature is determined based on the ambient humidity and a constant ambient pressure” in view of the teachings of Liu to determine the temperature at which the air reaches saturation.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the icemaker mounted within the chilled chamber; the controller being configured to operate the icemaker to produce ice at an increased icemaking rate”.
However, Fang teaches an icemaker (ice-making unit 160 Fig. 5 corresponds to the icemaker of Marutani) mounted within a chilled chamber (Fig. 1 where refrigerated compartment 111 corresponds to the chill chamber of Marutani); a controller (the disclosed “controller” in paragraph [34] corresponds to the controller of Marutani) being configured to operate the icemaker to produce ice at an increased icemaking rate (paragraph [104] where it is disclosed that the ice making time could be shorten) to improve the refrigeration efficiency (paragraph [104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the icemaker mounted within the chilled chamber; the controller being configured to operate the icemaker to produce ice at an increased icemaking rate” in view of the teachings of Fang to improve the refrigeration efficiency.
Regarding claim 15, Marutani teaches a method (the method described in paragraph [0036]) of operating a refrigerator appliance (refrigerator 10 Fig. 1), the refrigerator appliance comprising an icemaker (a person skilled in the art would recognize that the disclosed “ice making chamber” in paragraph [0014] would be provided with an icemaker); a chilled chamber (small freezer compartment 18 Fig. 1), a sealed system (refrigeration cycle 60 Fig. 2) for regulating a chamber temperature (corresponds to the temperature of small freezer compartment 18 Fig. 1) within the chilled chamber (paragraph [0029]), and an ambient humidity sensor (humidity sensor 48 Fig. 1), the method comprising: obtaining an ambient humidity (paragraph [0033]) using the ambient humidity sensor (paragraph [0033]); determining sweat (disclosed “dew condensation” in paragraphs [0036] and [0037]) will be produced on an outer surface of the refrigerator appliance (paragraph [0037]); determining a target temperature (understood to be any temperature within -24 and -20 degrees Celsius as described in paragraph [0036]); operating the sealed system to regulate the chamber temperature to the target temperature (paragraph [0036]).
Marutani teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the method comprising: determining a dewpoint temperature where the sweat will be produced; determining the target temperature that maintains an outer surface temperature to be equal or greater than the dewpoint temperature”.
However, Allard teaches a method (the method described in paragraphs [0039] to [0040] corresponds to the method of Marutani) comprising: determining a dewpoint temperature (temperature Td in paragraph [0038]) where sweat (the disclosed “condensation” in paragraph [0038] corresponds to the sweat of Marutani) will be produced (paragraph [0038]); determining a target temperature (understood to be any temperature above the disclosed “threshold temperature” in paragraph [0040]) that maintains an outer surface temperature (disclosed temperature Txr in paragraph [0040]) to be greater than the dewpoint temperature (paragraph [0040]) to keep moisture from developing on the exterior surface of the refrigerator (paragraph [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of Marutani to include “the method comprising: determining a dewpoint temperature where the sweat will be produced; determining the target temperature that maintains an outer surface temperature to be equal or greater than the dewpoint temperature” in view of the teachings of Allard to keep moisture from developing on the exterior surface of the refrigerator.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the dewpoint temperature is determined based on the ambient humidity and a constant ambient pressure”.
However, Liu teaches a dewpoint temperature (dew point temperature Td in paragraph [52] corresponds to the dewpoint temperature of Allard) is determined based on an ambient humidity (paragraph [52]) and a constant ambient pressure (paragraph [52]) to determine the temperature at which the air reaches saturation (paragraph [52]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “the dewpoint temperature is determined based on the ambient humidity and a constant ambient pressure” in view of the teachings of Liu to determine the temperature at which the air reaches saturation.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the icemaker positioned within the chilled chamber; the method comprising operating the icemaker to produce ice at an increased icemaking rate”.
However, Fang teaches an icemaker (ice-making unit 160 Fig. 5 corresponds to the icemaker of Marutani) positioned within a chilled chamber (Fig. 1 where refrigerated compartment 111 corresponds to the chill chamber of Marutani); a method (the method described in paragraph [104] corresponds to the method of Marutani) comprising operating the icemaker to produce ice at an increased icemaking rate (paragraph [104] where it is disclosed that the ice making time could be shorten) to improve the refrigeration efficiency (paragraph [104])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “the icemaker positioned within the chilled chamber; the method comprising operating the icemaker to produce ice at an increased icemaking rate” in view of the teachings of Fang to improve the refrigeration efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach wherein the target temperature is between 0.5 and 10 degrees above (paragraph [0036] of Marutani where the target temperature can be as high as -20 degrees Celsius) a temperature (referring to paragraph [0036] of Marutani, a person skilled in the art would recognize that the lowest possible temperature before the occurrence of condensation is -24 degrees Celsius) that maintains the outer surface temperature equal to the dewpoint temperature (paragraph [0036] of Marutani).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach wherein the target temperature is between 1 and 3 degrees above the temperature that maintains the outer surface temperature equal to the dewpoint temperature (paragraph [0036] of Marutani, where a person skilled in the art would recognize that the lowest possible temperature before the occurrence of condensation is -24 degrees Celsius and that the temperature can be set as high as -20 degrees Celsius).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach wherein the increased icemaking rate is determined based at least in part on the target temperature (paragraph [104] of Fang where the temperature needed to avoid condensation on the refrigerant outlet pipe corresponds to the target temperature of Marutani).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach wherein the controller is further configured to: operate the icemaker to produce the ice at a standard icemaking rate (paragraph [102] of Fang where the ice making rate associated with the disclosed “initial” setup corresponds to the standard ice making rate); receive a request (corresponds to when “the temperature of the refrigerant outlet pipe is greater than or equal to the dew point temperature of the indoor environment” as disclosed in paragraph [104] of Fang) to operate the icemaker at the increased icemaking rate (paragraph [104] of Fang); and operate the sealed system to regulate the chamber temperature to the target temperature in response to receiving the request to operate the icemaker at the increased icemaking rate (paragraph [104] and Fig. 2 of Fang where refrigeration system 130 corresponds to the sealed system of Marutani).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, the combined teachings teach wherein determining the target temperature comprises: determining that the ambient humidity falls below a relative humidity threshold (disclosed “reference humidity” in paragraph [0036] of Marutani); and setting the target temperature to a lowered target temperature (paragraph [0036] of Marutani where it is disclosed that the temperature can be set as low as -26 degrees Celsius) in response to determining that the ambient humidity falls below the relative humidity threshold (paragraph [0036] of Marutani).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach wherein the lowered target temperature is determined as a function of the ambient humidity (paragraph [0036] of Marutani).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein a relationship between the lowered operating temperature and the ambient humidity is stored in a lookup table, a regression equation, or a mathematical model”.
However, a different embodiment of Marutani teaches wherein a relationship (paragraph [0074]) between a lowered operating temperature and ambient humidity (paragraph [0071] where it is understood that the desired lower temperature is a function of the amount of heat generated by heater 58) is stored in a lookup table (paragraph [0074]) to reduce the controller processing time by removing the need to calculate the condensation prevention temperature (paragraph [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein a relationship between the lowered operating temperature and the ambient humidity is stored in a lookup table, a regression equation, or a mathematical model” in view of the teachings of a different embodiment of Marutani to reduce the controller processing time by removing the need to calculate the condensation prevention temperature.
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the relative humidity threshold is between 60% and 90%”.
However, Marutani does disclose a relative humidity threshold which is set at 50% (paragraph [0036]).
Thus, the “wherein the relative humidity threshold is between 60% and 90%” is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is a relative humidity threshold that is between “60% and 90%”.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. a relative humidity threshold, was disclosed in the prior art by Marutani, 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 at the time of the invention to provide “wherein the relative humidity threshold is between 60% and 90%”.
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the relative humidity threshold is 75%”.
However, Marutani does disclose a relative humidity threshold which is set at 50% (paragraph [0036]).
Thus, the “wherein the relative humidity threshold is 75%” is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is a relative humidity threshold that is set at “75%”.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. a relative humidity threshold, was disclosed in the prior art by Marutani, 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 at the time of the invention to provide “wherein the relative humidity threshold is 75%”.
Regarding claims 11 and 19, the combined teachings teach wherein determining the target temperature comprises: determining that the ambient humidity exceeds a relative humidity threshold (disclosed “reference humidity” in paragraph [0036] of Marutani); setting the target temperature to a standard target temperature (understood to be any temperature within -24 and -20 degrees Celsius as described in paragraph [0036] of Marutani) in response to determining that the ambient humidity exceeds the relative humidity threshold (paragraph [0036] of Marutani); and operating the sealed system to regulate the chamber temperature to the standard target temperature to produce the ice at the standard icemaking rate (paragraph [103] of Fang where the temperature needed to avoid condensation on the refrigerant outlet pipe corresponds to the standard target temperature of Marutani).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach wherein the ambient humidity sensor is mounted on the outer surface of the refrigerator appliance (Fig. 1 of Marutani).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach further comprising: a door (door body 120 Fig. 1 of Fang) rotatably mounted to the cabinet (Fig. 1 of Fang) and rotatable between a closed position (Fig. 1 and paragraph [51] of Fang) enclosing the chilled chamber and an open position (paragraph [51] of Fang) providing access to the chilled chamber (paragraph [51] of Fang), wherein the icemaker is mounted to the door (Fig. 1 of Fang).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach wherein the target temperature is between 0.5 and 10 degrees above the dewpoint temperature (paragraph [0036] of Marutani where the target temperature can be as high as -20 degrees Celsius).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings teach further comprising: operating the icemaker to produce the ice at a standard icemaking rate (paragraph [102] of Fang where the ice making rate associated with the disclosed “initial” setup corresponds to the standard ice making rate); receiving a request (corresponds to when “the temperature of the refrigerant outlet pipe is greater than or equal to the dew point temperature of the indoor environment” as disclosed in paragraph [104] of Fang) to operate the icemaker at the increased icemaking rate (paragraph [104] of Fang); and operating the sealed system to regulate the chamber temperature to the target temperature in response to receiving the request to operate the icemaker at the increased icemaking rate (paragraph [104] and Fig. 2 of Fang where refrigeration system 130 corresponds to the sealed system of Marutani).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marutani, Allard, Liu, and Fang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Favila et al. (US 20170321960 A1, herein after referred to as Favila).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach wherein the chilled chamber is a freezer chamber (paragraph 0014] of Marutani).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the refrigerator appliance is a side-by-side refrigerator appliance”.
However, Favila teaches wherein a refrigerator appliance (refrigeration device 10 Fig. 4 corresponds to the refrigerator appliance of Marutani) is a side-by-side refrigerator appliance (Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the refrigerator appliance is a side-by-side refrigerator appliance” in view of the teachings of Favila to provide storage chambers of equal storage capability.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marutani, in view of Fang, and in further view of Liu.
Regarding claim 20, Marutani teaches a refrigerator appliance (refrigerator 10 Fig. 1) defining a vertical direction (the height direction of refrigerator 10 Fig. 1), a lateral direction (the width direction of refrigerator 10 Fig. 1), and a transverse direction (the depth direction of refrigerator 10 Fig. 1), comprising: a cabinet (cabinet 12 Fig. 1) defining a chilled chamber (small freezer compartment 18 Fig. 1); an icemaker (a person skilled in the art would recognize that the disclosed “ice making chamber” in paragraph [0014] would be provided with an icemaker); a sealed system (refrigeration cycle 60 Fig. 2) for regulating a chamber temperature (corresponds to the temperature of small freezer compartment 18 Fig. 1) within the chilled chamber (paragraph [0029]); an ambient humidity sensor (humidity sensor 48 Fig. 1); and a controller (main control unit 76 Fig. 3) in operative communication with the icemaker, the sealed system, and the ambient humidity sensor (Fig. 3), the controller being configured to: obtain an ambient humidity (paragraph [0033]) using the ambient humidity sensor (paragraph [0033]); determine that the ambient humidity is less than a predetermined humidity threshold (disclosed “reference humidity” in paragraph [0036]), the predetermined humidity threshold being a function of the chamber temperature (paragraph [0036] where it is disclosed that the temperature is set based on the outside humidity); and operate the sealed system to reduce the chamber temperature to a lowered target temperature (paragraph [0036] where it is disclosed that the temperature can be set as low as -26 degrees Celsius).
Marutani teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the icemaker mounted within the chilled chamber; the controller being configured to: operate the icemaker to produce ice at a standard icemaking rate; receive a request to operate the icemaker at an increased icemaking rate”.
However, Fang teaches an icemaker (ice-making unit 160 Fig. 5 corresponds to the icemaker of Marutani) mounted within a chilled chamber (Fig. 1 where refrigerated compartment 111 corresponds to the chill chamber of Marutani); a controller (the disclosed “controller” in paragraph [34] corresponds to the controller of Marutani) being configured to: operate the icemaker to produce ice at a standard icemaking rate (paragraph [102] where the ice making rate associated with the disclosed “initial” setup corresponds to the standard ice making rate); receive a request (corresponds to when “the temperature of the refrigerant outlet pipe is greater than or equal to the dew point temperature of the indoor environment” as disclosed in paragraph [104]) to operate the icemaker at an increased icemaking rate (paragraph [104] where it is disclosed that the ice making time could be shorten) to improve the refrigeration efficiency (paragraph [104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Marutani to include “the icemaker mounted within the chilled chamber; the controller being configured to: operate the icemaker to produce ice at a standard icemaking rate; receive a request to operate the icemaker at an increased icemaking rate” in view of the teachings of Fang to improve the refrigeration efficiency.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the predetermined humidity threshold being a function of a constant ambient pressure”.
However, Liu teaches determining humidity at constant pressure (paragraph [52]) to allow for calculating the dewpoint temperature (paragraph [52]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the predetermined humidity threshold being a function of a constant ambient pressure” in view of the teachings of Liu to allow for calculating the dewpoint temperature.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 8 that one having ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the teachings of Marutani with the teachings of Fang because of “conflicting operational goals”, Examiner disagrees.
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that the method of Marutani for preventing condensation in high humidity involves “raising the average freezer temperature (e.g., from an average of -22°C to -21°C as per Figs. 5 & 6) to keep the outer surface warmer”.
Referring to paragraphs [0036] and [0037], Marutani teaches preventing the formation of dew on the refrigerator surface by narrowing the “refrigeration control temperature width diff” so that the compressor would start earlier resulting in an increase on/off cycle of the compressor (see Fig. 6). In other words, the target temperature of the freezer remains the same but the temperature difference between the upper and lower limits of the control range is made smaller. For example, as described in paragraph [0036], with a target temperature of -22 degrees Celsius, the control range goes from -22 ±4 degrees to -22 ±2 degrees to prevent the formation of dew.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
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 SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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, Jerry -Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights