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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
Claims 3, 5 and 7, were previously rejected under 35 USC 101 under a provisional double patenting rejection. This rejection was traversed in the remarks filed 3-4-26. However, Applicant has filed a terminal disclaimer. As such, the double patenting rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “supporting frame (for the image sensor) being the riving knife” (claim 12 and claim 13) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Looking at figure 2, the frame 41 appears to be an arm that extends from the handle (fig. 2). A riving knife is typically known in the art to be “a safety device installed on a table saw, circular saw, or radial arm saw used for woodworking. Attached to the saw's arbor, it is fixed relative to the blade and moves with it as blade depth is adjusted.” (Wikipedia). See also the riving knife in the cited prior art. (Maharshi Ramaswamy, USPGPUB 20160318142). (riving device 116). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation reading: “the image sensor is disposed on a supporting frame, and the supporting frame is a riving knife” (of claim 12 and claim 13), was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Looking at figure 2, the frame 41 appears to be an arm that extends from the handle (fig. 2). A riving knife is typically known in the art to be “a safety device installed on a table saw, circular saw, or radial arm saw used for woodworking. Attached to the saw's arbor, it is fixed relative to the blade and moves with it as blade depth is adjusted.” (Wikipedia). See also the riving knife in the cited prior art. (Maharshi Ramaswamy, USPGPUB 20160318142). (riving device 116). Thus, the image sensor is disposed on a supporting frame, and the supporting frame is a riving knife was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2 and 9: are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20040017294, Metzger, in view of USPGPUB 20020017179, Gass and USPGPUB US20100300256A1, Loewe, and also in view of USPGPUB 20250178177, Medeiros, [having a priority date of Feb. 28 of 2022].
Regarding Claim 1, Metzger discloses a sawing device (saw, abstract) comprising: a sawing machine having a worktable (fig. 7, 10), a saw blade box (arm and blade), the worktable having a work plane (par 0031), the saw blade being able to be driven by the motor to operate (par. 0029 and 0031); and a safety module having a sensor and a controller (par 0029, sensor and control system), the sensor defining a safety zone (zone outside of danger zones) and a danger zone (21) for the work plane (fig 5), the controller being electrically connected with the motor (par0029), and when the image sensor captures that an object is located in the danger zone, the image sensor transmits a brake signal to the controller to make the controller control the motor to stop operating (par. 0029).
Metzger lacks:
Feature (I) the saw blade and box pivotably disposed on the worktable, a motor installed on the saw blade box, and a saw blade connected with the motor and partially accommodated in the saw blade box, and able to be driven by the saw blade box to approach or leave the work plane.
Feature (II) the sensor being an image sensor, the sensor being disposed above the worktable and
Feature (IIII) the image sensor transmits a start signal to the controller to make the controller control the motor to start up, and when the image sensor captures that an object is located in the danger zone.
Regarding Feature (I) Gass discloses an electronically controlled miter saw in the same field of endeavor as the electronically controlled miter saw of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a saw assembly 1516 pivotably disposed on a worktable (par. 0044, and pivoting part 1154), a motor (16) installed on the saw blade box (fig. 5), and a saw blade connected with the motor (par 0030) and partially accommodated in the saw blade box (par 0042, fig. 8), and said saw blade able to be driven by the saw blade box to approach or leave the work plane (par 0044, and 0030-0032), in order to in order to cut or remove portions of the workpiece, par 0017.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Metzger by having the device have the saw blade and box pivotably disposed on the worktable, a motor installed on the saw blade box, and a saw blade connected with the motor and partially accommodated in the saw blade box, and able to be driven by the saw blade box to approach or leave the work plane in order to have to cut or remove portions of the workpiece as taught by Gass.
Regarding Feature (II) Loewe discloses a system and method for detecting user entry into a defined danger zone of a miter saw (abstract, par. 0009) in the same field of endeavor as the system for detecting user entry into a defined danger zone of a miter saw of the present invention, and includes a sensor (combined sensors 38 and 34 )for detecting a user’s hand entering a danger zone (par 0025) the sensor being an image sensor (par 0025, “lens” and par “imaging unit” 34), the sensor being disposed above the worktable (fig 1, and par 0025-0026) to detect a user’s hand approaching a danger zone around the blade (par. 0025-0026), in order to allow a particularly short response time to be achieved in recognizing a type of material in the tool range (par. 0009).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Metzger by replacing the conductive sensor in Metzger with the dual image sensor shown in Loewe, the sensor being disposed above the worktable, in order to allow a particularly short response time to be achieved in recognizing a type of material in the tool range, as taught by Keller.
Regarding feature (III) Medeiros discloses an electronically controlled power tool in the same field of endeavor as the electronically controlled power tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a visual element (“photoelectric sensors”, par. 0039) which, when a specific target (“user’s hand”, par 0049) is recognized by the visual element (par 0039 and 0049), the visual element transmits a start signal (“wake-up operation”) to a controller 212 to make the controller control the motor to start up (par 0051 “In one example, the controller 212 may initialize the power supply 202 and/or the motor drive circuit 204”) in order to “wake up” the tool when a user is determined to be close to or actually handling the tool and thus make it so that there is no delay between the user actuating the trigger and motor rotation occurring, par 0051.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Metzger by having the apparatus perform the function: when a specific target is recognized by the visual element, the visual element transmits a start signal to the controller to make the controller control the motor to start up in order to “wake up” the tool when a user is determined to be close to or actually handling the tool and thus make it so that there is no delay between the user actuating the trigger and motor rotation occurring, as taught in Medeiros.
Regarding Claim 2, in Metzger the specific target is a biometric (since a user, or portion of a user is a biometric).
Regarding Claim 9, in Metzger, the sawing device as claimed in claim 1, includes wherein the danger zone is defined around the saw blade and right in front of the saw blade by the sensor (fig 5), and the sensor is an image sensor (as modified above in view of Loewe).
Regarding Claim 14, Metzger,
Claims 3, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Metzger in view of Gass and of Loewe.
Regarding Claim 3, Metzger discloses: a sawing device (abstract) comprising:
a sawing machine (e.g. miter saw, fig. 7) having a worktable (10), a saw blade box (arm and saw blade, par. 0029), and a saw blade connected with the motor and partially accommodated in the saw blade box (par 0029), the worktable having a work plane (top of work table which supports work), the saw blade being able to be driven by the motor to operate (par 0029 and 0031); and
a safety module (par 0029, sensor and control system) having a sensor and a controller (par 0029), the sensor defining a safety zone (zone outside of danger zones) and a danger zone (21) for the work plane (par 0029 and 0030-0031), the controller being electrically connected with the motor and the sensor (par. 0029), the sensor transmits a brake signal to the controller to make the controller control the motor to stop operating (par 0029, braking system activated by the control).
Metzger lacks:
Feature (I) the saw blade and box pivotably disposed on the worktable, a motor installed on the saw blade box, and a saw blade connected with the motor and partially accommodated in the saw blade box, and able to be driven by the saw blade box to approach or leave the work plane, and
Feature (II) the sensor being an image sensor, the sensor being disposed above the worktable, wherein the sensor is also used to determine that an object is about to enter the danger zone according to a movement trajectory of the object and
Regarding Feature (I) Gass discloses an electronically controlled miter saw in the same field of endeavor as the electronically controlled miter saw of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a saw assembly 1516 pivotably disposed on a worktable (par. 0044, and pivoting part 1154), a motor (16) installed on the saw blade box (fig. 5), and a saw blade connected with the motor (par 0030) and partially accommodated in the saw blade box (par 0042, fig. 8), and said saw blade able to be driven by the saw blade box to approach or leave the work plane (par 0044, and 0030-0032), in order to in order to cut or remove portions of the workpiece, par 0017.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Metzger by having the device have the saw blade and box pivotably disposed on the worktable, a motor installed on the saw blade box, and a saw blade connected with the motor and partially accommodated in the saw blade box, and able to be driven by the saw blade box to approach or leave the work plane in order to have to cut or remove portions of the workpiece as taught by Gass.
Regarding Feature (II) Loewe discloses a saw safety braking tool, in the same field of endeavor as the a saw safety/braking tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a visual element (34 and 38, par. 0025), which helps to defining a safety zone (36) and a danger zone (40) for the work plane (18), and when the visual element captures that an object about to enter the danger zone 40 according to a movement trajectory of the object (par. 0034 - par. 0035), the visual element transmits a brake signal (par. 0034 and Par. 0027) to the controller to make the controller control the device to stop the blade from operating/ stop the tool drive, (par 0027 and 0034), in order to allow for rapid recognition and reacting to a dangerous condition, par 0008-0009.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Metzger by replacing the conductive sensor in Metzger with the dual image sensor shown in Loewe, the sensor being disposed above the worktable, wherein the sensor is also used to determine that an object is about to enter the danger zone according to a movement trajectory of the object, in order to allow a particularly short response time to be achieved in recognizing a type of material in the tool range, as taught by Loewe.
Regarding Claim 5, in Metzger, the specific target is a biometric or a non-biometric. (since a user, or portion of a user is a biometric).
Regarding Claim 7, in Metzger, the sawing device as claimed in claim 3, includes wherein the danger zone is defined around the saw blade and right in front of the saw blade by the sensor (fig 5), and the sensor is an image sensor (as modified above in view of Loewe).
Regarding claim 14, Metzger lacks: wherein the image sensor continuously captures the object to obtain a plurality of dynamic parameters of the object, the dynamic parameters including at least one of a movement direction, a movement speed, a shape variation, and a displacement path, based on which the controller determines whether the object is likely to enter the danger zone.
Loewe also discloses that in ascertaining whether an object is to enter the danger zone, the process of Loewe includes the image sensor continuously captures the object to obtain a plurality of dynamic parameters of the object, the dynamic parameters including at least one of a movement direction and a movement speed (par 0033), in order to only alert an operator of a dangerous condition when the condition is actually dangerous (par 0033, end).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Metzger in view of Gass and of Loewe as applied to claim 3 above, and in view of Medeiros.
Regarding Claim 4, the Metzger device as modified by Loewe, discloses all the limitations of Claim 3 as discussed above.
Said device lacks: wherein when a specific target is recognized by the visual element, the visual element transmits a start signal to the controller to make the controller control the motor to start up.
Medeiros discloses an electronically controlled power tool in the same field of endeavor as the electronically controlled power tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a visual element (“photoelectric sensors”, par. 0039) which, when a specific target (“user’s hand”, par 0049) is recognized by the visual element (par 0039 and 0049), the visual element transmits a start signal (“wake-up operation”) to a controller 212 to make the controller control the motor to start up (par 0051 “In one example, the controller 212 may initialize the power supply 202 and/or the motor drive circuit 204”) in order to “wake up” the tool when a user is determined to be close to or actually handling the tool and thus make it so that there is no delay between the user actuating the trigger and motor rotation occurring, par 0051.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Metzger by having the apparatus perform the function: when a specific target is recognized by the visual element, the visual element transmits a start signal to the controller to make the controller control the motor to start up in order to “wake up” the tool when a user is determined to be close to or actually handling the tool and thus make it so that there is no delay between the user actuating the trigger and motor rotation occurring, as taught in Medeiros.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Metzger, Gass, and Loewe as applied to Claim 3 above, and in view of USPGPUB 20140260845, Voong.
Regarding Claim 6, in Modified Metzger, the device thereof comprises: a brake (braking device, par 0029), and the sensor is an image sensor (as modified above in view of Loewe).
Metzger lacks: the brake disposed on the motor by assembly and electrically connected with the controller; when the image sensor transmits the brake signal to the controller, the controller drives the brake to perform a brake control to the motor to make the motor stop operating.
Voong discloses a safety system for a motor saw having a brake that is controlled in accordance with the sensing of a dangerous condition (abstract), in the same field of endeavor as the safety system for a motor driven saw of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes: a brake 133 disposed on a motor 110 (fig 2) by assembly and electrically connected with a controller (par 0020); when a sensor 162 transmits the brake signal to the controller (par 0020 ), the controller drives the brake to perform a brake control to the motor to make the motor stop operating (par 0020-0023), in order to stop the motor in a rapid manner when a condition is detected (par 0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Metzger by further including the safety system thereof including the brake being disposed on the motor by assembly and electrically connected with the controller; when the image sensor transmits the brake signal to the controller, the controller drives the brake to perform a brake control to the motor to make the motor stop operating, in order to stop the motor in a rapid manner when an unsafe condition is detected as taught by Voong.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Metzger, Gass, Loewe and Medeiros as applied to Claim 1 above, and in view of Voong.
Regarding Claim 8, in Modified Metzger, the device thereof comprises: a brake (braking device, par 0029), and the sensor is an image sensor (as modified above in view of Loewe).
Metzger lacks: the brake disposed on the motor by assembly and electrically connected with the controller; when the image sensor transmits the brake signal to the controller, the controller drives the brake to perform a brake control to the motor to make the motor stop operating.
Voong discloses a safety system for a motor saw having a brake that is controlled in accordance with the sensing of a dangerous condition (abstract), in the same field of endeavor as the safety system for a motor driven saw of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes: a brake 133 disposed on a motor 110 (fig 2) by assembly and electrically connected with a controller (par 0020); when a sensor 162 transmits the brake signal to the controller (par 0020 ), the controller drives the brake to perform a brake control to the motor to make the motor stop operating (par 0020-0023), in order to stop the motor in a rapid manner when a condition is detected (par 0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Metzger by further including the safety system thereof including the brake being disposed on the motor by assembly and electrically connected with the controller; when the image sensor transmits the brake signal to the controller, the controller drives the brake to perform a brake control to the motor to make the motor stop operating, in order to stop the motor in a rapid manner when an unsafe condition is detected as taught by Voong.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Metzger, Gass and Loewe as applied to Claim 1 above, and in view of USPGPUB 20220221240, Song
Regarding Claim 10, Modified Metzger lacks wherein when the controller receives the start signal, the controller controls a brake to apply braking control to the motor, and the controller drives the motor to rotate the saw blade only after the image sensor confirms that the object is located within the safety zone.
Song discloses a safety control system for a handheld power tool, in the same field of endeavor as the safety control system for a handheld power tool, of the present application, and discloses that in such a system, a controller is controlled to either power or stop power to the system when a safe or unsafe condition is detected, and discloses that in making such a determination the system includes: wherein when the controller receives a start signal (par 0145), the controller controls (lock) to prevent the system from operating to perform a firing operation (par 0146), wherein the controller allows the system to fire only after the image sensor confirms that the system is in a safe zone/conditions, in order to only allow the system to be powered to perform its normal operation and to start the system when a safe condition is detected (par 145).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Metzger by further including wherein when the controller receives the start signal, the controller controls the system stop the system from controlling the main operation (cutting) by control to the motor, and the controller drives the system to perform its main function (cutting) when only after the image sensor confirms that the object is located within the safety zone, in order to only allow the system to be powered to perform its normal operation and to start the system when a safe condition is detected as taught by Song.
In modifying Metzger as above an artisan of such skill in the art would be motivated to apply the safety teachings of Song into Metzger to be applied equally to the normal conditions of Metzger, e.g. to use the brake of Metzger to prevent normal operation once the controller receives a power start signal and to allow the motor to rotate the blade only when a safe condition is detected (which safe condition corresponds to a user’s hand being in the safety zone).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Metzger, Gass and Loewe and Medeiros as applied to Claim 1 above, and in view of USPGPUB 20160318142 Maharshi Ramaswamy.
Regarding Claim 12, Metzger lacks the image sensor disposed on a supporting frame, and the supporting frame is a riving knife.
Maharshi Ramaswamy discloses an object detector safety system in a saw, in the same field of endeavor as the an object detector safety system in a saw, of the present application, and discloses that such a system includes an image sensor (120) for detecting an object that approaches the saw blade (par 0018), and discloses that such a sensor is mounted on a riving knife of the device, in order to track the direction of movement and rate of movement of the objects over time (par 0019, and prevent contact between the finger 164 and the moving blade par 0021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Metzger by including the image sensor disposed on a supporting frame, and the supporting frame is a riving knife in order to track the direction of movement and rate of movement of the objects over time, and prevent contact between the finger and the moving blade in order to as taught by Maharshi Ramaswamy.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Metzger, Gass and Loewe as applied to Claim 3 above, and in view of Maharshi Ramaswamy.
Regarding Claim 12, Modified Metzger lacks the image sensor disposed on a supporting frame, and the supporting frame is a riving knife.
Maharshi Ramaswamy discloses an object detector safety system in a saw, in the same field of endeavor as the an object detector safety system in a saw, of the present application, and discloses that such a system includes an image sensor (120) for detecting an object that approaches the saw blade (par 0018), and discloses that such a sensor is mounted on a riving knife of the device, in order to track the direction of movement and rate of movement of the objects over time (par 0019, and prevent contact between the finger 164 and the moving blade par 0021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Metzger by including the image sensor disposed on a supporting frame, and the supporting frame is a riving knife in order to track the direction of movement and rate of movement of the objects over time, and prevent contact between the finger and the moving blade in order to as taught by Maharshi Ramaswamy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the found or cited prior art includes “, wherein when the controller receives the start signal, the controller the motor to start and operate in an idling state, such that the saw blade does not rotate, and when the image sensor confirms that the object is located within the safety zone, the controller controls the motor to drive the saw blade to rotate” in addition to the rest of the structure/function of claim 1. For example, USPN: 5435066 Bare, shows a cutting device with a safety system and discloses that “cutting device 10 has several power modes: "off," "on/idle," "normal cutting," and "turbo." When a user first turns the cutting device 10 on, the motor 70 is powered to "idle." When the motor 70 is powered to idle it is at a slow speed and is not very noisy. When the user starts to cut the need for increased power is sensed (as described in detail below) and full normal cutting power is provided to the motor 70 (enough to cause the cutting blade 20 to oscillate between approximately 10,000-20,000 and preferably 15,000-16,000 cycles per minute)”. This is very similar to what is required of claim 11. However, Claim 11 requires that the transition from idle to full power happens when the system detects that an object is not in a safety zone. Unlike Song, which was used to reject claim 10, which confirms a safety of the system in a non contact manner, the system of Bare detects a safe state via contact. As such, this teaches away from the contactless system claimed in claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 03-04-2026, with respect to the prior art rejections of claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive (as the claims have been amended). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Meltzer.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs 4940038 4922777 5287779 5287780 5353670 20160263769, 20180243848 7197969 20090007742 20160303667 200600966425, Keller 20040017294 20060096425 20150273725 and 20160016237 speed disclose each disclose state of the art power tools with safety systems. Thus, each of these references disclose elements relevant to the present invention/application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on 571-272-4502. 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.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/GHASSEM ALIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 04/02/2026