DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
The claims listed below are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 7, change “wherein the burner generates” to -- wherein the burner is configured to generate -- (note that Claim 1 is an apparatus claim and should not include method steps)
In Claim 1, line 9, change “supplies” to -- is configured to supply --
In Claim 1, line 11, change “supplies” to -- is configured to supply --
In Claim 1, line 12, change “discharges” to -- is configured to discharge --
In Claim 1, line 14, change “transfers” to -- is configured to transfer --
In Claim 1, line 15, change “supplies” to -- is configured to supply --
In Claim 1, line 15, change “measures” to -- is configured to measure --
In Claim 1, line 17, change “the monitoring unit evaluates the measured values of the temperature sensor” to -- the monitoring unit is configured to evaluate values measured by the temperature sensor --
In Claim 2, line 4, change “evaluates” to -- is configured to evaluate --
In Claim 3, line 2, change “evaluates” to -- is configured to evaluate --
In Claim 4, line 2, change “with a view to” to -- to determine -- (or equivalent)
In Claim 5, change “the selected power level” to -- a selected power level --
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“a monitoring unit” (Claim 1)
“an adjusting device” (Claim 2)
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.
Regarding “a monitoring unit” (from Claim 1): The specification fails to provide any possible structure for the claimed “unit”. It is consequently unclear what structural elements the claimed “unit” comprises or does not comprise to perform the claimed function of monitoring which warrants a 112(b) rejection for Claim 1 (as is presented below in this Office Action). For the purpose of expediting prosecution, “a monitoring unit” (from Claim 1) will be interpreted as any unit that can perform or contribute to performing the function of monitoring.
Regarding “an adjusting device” (from Claim 2): The specification fails to provide any possible structure for the claimed “device”. It is consequently unclear what structural elements the claimed “device” comprises or does not comprise to perform the claimed function of adjusting which warrants a 112(b) rejection for Claim 2 (as is presented below in this Office Action). For the purpose of expediting prosecution, “an adjusting device” (from Claim 2) will be interpreted as any device that can perform or contribute to performing the function of adjusting.
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 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.
3. Claims 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a monitoring unit” which has invoked 112(f) (as is presented above in this Office Action). However, the specification fails to provide any possible structure for the claimed “unit”. Thus, the claim 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 since no possible structure for the claimed “monitoring unit” has been disclosed. The specification accordingly lacks adequate written description because the specification does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 accordingly stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-6 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “an adjusting device” which has invoked 112(f) (as is presented above in this Office Action). However, the specification fails to provide any possible structure for the claimed “device”. Thus, the claim 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 since no possible structure for the claimed “adjusting device” has been disclosed. The specification accordingly lacks adequate written description because the specification does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 2 accordingly stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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 1-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a monitoring unit” which has invoked 112(f) (as is presented above in this Office Action). However, the specification fails to provide any possible structure for the claimed “unit”. It is consequently unclear what structural elements the claimed “unit” comprises or does not comprise to perform the claimed function of monitoring which makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. For the purpose of expediting prosecution, “a monitoring unit” (from Claim 1) will be interpreted as any unit that can perform or contribute to performing the function of monitoring.
Furthermore, Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein, based on the evaluation, the monitoring unit monitors the device - preferably the air circulation fan” which is considered indefinite because the recitation of “preferably” makes it unclear if the limitation “preferably the air circulation fan” is actually required by the claim or not. Moreover, Claim 1 is an apparatus claim yet this limitation is written as a method step and it is unclear how the evaluation (via the limitation “based on the evaluation”) affects the monitoring such that “based on the evaluation, the monitoring unit monitors the device - preferably the air circulation fan”. Note that the specification fails to clarify this issue. The metes and bounds of Claim 1 are consequently unclear.
Claims 2-6 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the power levels can be selected by an adjusting device” wherein “an adjusting device” has invoked 112(f) (as is presented above in this Office Action). However, the specification fails to provide any possible structure for the claimed “device”. It is consequently unclear what structural elements the claimed “device” comprises or does not comprise to perform the claimed function of adjusting which makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. For the purpose of expediting prosecution, “an adjusting device” (from Claim 1) will be interpreted as any device that can perform or contribute to performing the function of adjusting. Furthermore, it is unclear if “an adjusting device” is actually required by the claim or not given the recitation of “can be” in the limitation “wherein the power levels can be selected by an adjusting device”. Note that the specification fails to clarify these issues. The metes and bounds of Claim 2 are consequently unclear.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein in the event that the comparison result means that the gradient limit value has been exceeded, the monitoring unit signals an error - preferably an error of the air circulation fan” which is considered indefinite because the recitation of “preferably” makes it unclear if the limitation “preferably an error of the air circulation fan” is actually required by the claim or not. Moreover, Claim 4 is an apparatus claim yet this limitation, in addition to all other limitations of Claim 4, are written as method steps. It is unclear if Claim 4 is attempting to claim a method within an apparatus claim (which is not permissible), is attempting to establish that one or more elements of the claimed apparatus are configured to perform one or more of the claimed functions or attempting to do something else altogether. Note that the specification fails to clarify these issues. The metes and bounds of Claim 4 are consequently unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi et al. (US 6,295,937 B1) (hereinafter “Nakanishi”) in view of Hodges et al. (US 2021/0278087 A1) (hereinafter “Hodges”).
Regarding Claim 1, to the extent that Claim 1 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action, Nakanishi teaches of a device (Fig. 1) for heating air (air that is emitted from “hot air outlet 24”) (see at least Col. 6 lines 29-31 and Fig. 1), comprising:
a housing (housing comprising element (1)), a burner (2), a combustion air fan (16), a combustion air supply (combustion air supply comprising elements (31) and (16b)), a fuel supply (3), a flue gas discharge (27), a heat exchanger (21), an air circulation fan (23), a temperature sensor (55) (see at least Col. 5 lines 42-58, Col. 6 lines 10-32, Col. 7 lines 26-29 and Fig. 1), a data memory (at least the data memory of “burner controller 47” that stores, inter alia, a “set temperature” and “predetermined control modes including an operation start mode defined between ignition and stable combustion and a temperature control mode required for permitting a temperature in the room to reach the set temperature”) (see at least Col. 8 line 43, Col. 8 lines 57-62 and Figs. 1-2 ), and a monitoring unit (monitoring unit comprising “burner controller 47”) (see at least Col. 8 lines 57-62 and Figs. 1-2 ),
wherein the housing comprises at least the burner (2), the combustion air fan (16), the fuel supply (3), the heat exchanger (21), and the air circulation fan (23) (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least Col. 5 lines 42-58, Col. 6 lines 10-32, Col. 7 lines 26-29 and Fig. 1),
wherein the burner (2) generates thermal energy by combusting a fuel-combustion air mixture (see at least Col. 6 lines 10-21 and Fig. 1),
wherein the combustion air fan (16) supplies combustion air from the combustion air supply to the burner (see at least Col. 6 lines 10-21 and Fig. 1),
wherein the fuel supply (3) supplies fuel to the burner (see at least Col. 5 lines 42-51 and Fig. 1),
wherein the flue gas discharge (27) discharges flue gas produced by the combustion of the fuel-combustion air mixture (see at least Col. 6 lines 33-41 and Fig. 1),
wherein the heat exchanger (21) transfers the thermal energy to the air to be heated (see at least Col. 6 lines 27-41 and Fig. 1),
wherein the air circulation fan (23) supplies the air to be heated to the heat exchanger (see at least Col. 6 lines 22-32 and Fig. 1), and
wherein the temperature sensor (55) measures a temperature of the combustion air (see at least Col. 7 lines 26-29 and Fig. 1).
Nakanishi fails to explicitly teach that the monitoring unit is configured to evaluate values measured by the temperature sensor using data that is stored in the data memory, wherein, based on the evaluation, the monitoring unit is configured to monitor the device.
Hodges discloses a relatable fuel burning device (1) (see at least Abstract, [0026] and Fig. 1) that comprises means (means comprising elements (30) and (17)) for igniting and burning fuel (see at least [0033] and Figs. 2, 4-5). The appliance comprises a monitoring unit (monitoring unit comprising element (13)) that monitors at least “temperature” (see at least [0030], [0038] and Fig. 4) that is configured to evaluate values measured by a temperature sensor (“temperature sensor” comprising element (21)) (see at least [0008], [0030] and Fig. 4) using data that is stored in a data memory (data of “predetermined temperature” (see [0038]) that is stored in a data memory of the “central processor” (see [0038])) (see at least [0038] and Fig. 4), wherein, based on the evaluation, the monitoring unit is configured to monitor the device (as is the case when (at least) “it is determined that the room temperature is below a predetermined value” (see [0038]) and the monitoring unit comprising element (13) monitors (at least) the temperature sensor of the device and its sensed temperature while the sensed temperature is “increased to the desired temperature” (see [0038])) (see at least [0038] and Figs. 4, 9). Hodges teaches that such arrangement, inter alia, helps to achieve (at least) the desired “predetermined temperature” (see at least [0038]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device taught by Nakanishi by configuring the existing monitoring unit to evaluate values measured by the existing temperature sensor using data that is stored in the data memory, wherein, based on the evaluation, the monitoring unit is configured to monitor (at least) the temperature sensor of the device and its sensed temperature as is taught by Hodges. Doing so would have, inter alia, provided means for helping to achieve a desired predetermined temperature. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 2, to the extent that Claim 2 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action, Hodges also teaches that the device is adapted to be operated at a plurality of power levels (different power levels of heat “that may be adjusted by way of a thermostat or other means”) (see at least [0038] and Figs. 4, 9), wherein the power levels can be selected by an adjusting device (“thermostat or other means”) (see at least [0038] and Figs. 4, 9), wherein the monitoring unit (13) that would be used in the combined apparatus evaluates the measured values as a function of the selected power level (the chosen power level is directly related to the “predetermined temperature” that the monitoring unit compares the measured values to and then evaluates any difference - the monitoring unit (13) accordingly evaluates the measured values as a function of the selected power level as claimed since the selected power level establishes the “predetermined temperature” that the monitoring unit compares the measured values to and then evaluates any difference therefrom (see at least [0038] and Figs. 4, 9). Thus, the combination of Nakanishi and Hodges would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 6, Nakanishi also teaches that the combustion air supply (combustion air supply comprising elements (31) and (16b)) and the flue gas discharge (27) are configured and arranged in relation to each other such that a transfer of thermal energy between the flue gas and the combustion air is allowed (Note that is light of the specification, the limitation of the combustion air supply and the flue gas discharge being configured and arranged in relation to each other such that a transfer of thermal energy between the flue gas and the combustion air is “allowed” is being interpreted as the combustion air supply and the flue gas discharge being arranged relative to one another such that the combustion air is configured to/able to receive a transfer of thermal energy from the flue gas. In the instant case, Nakanishi teaches of doing exactly that via “double-pipe structure 33” which facilitates thermal energy transfer from the flue gas to the combustion air (see at least Col. 6 lines 48-63 and Fig. 1) and accordingly meets this limitation as claimed.).
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi and Hodges further in view of Pallek et al. (US 5,513,979) (hereinafter “Pallek”).
Regarding Claim 3, Nakanishi and Hodges teach the device according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1), but fail to explicitly teach that the monitoring unit evaluates the measured values as a function of an outside temperature.
Pallek discloses a relatable gas furnace system (Fig. 1) that comprises a monitoring unit (“R”) that evaluates measured values (measured values of “temperature”) as a function of (at least) an outside temperature (“external temperature TA”) (see at least Col. 4 lines 15-30 and Fig. 1 - “The temperature is regulated via regulator R as a function of the actual temperature values, e.g., the room temperature TR, the boiler temperature TK, the external temperature TA, and/or the flow temperature TV.”) and teaches that doing so, inter alia, enables enhanced “control” of the system (see at least Col. 4 lines 15-30 and Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined device by configuring the existing monitoring unit to additionally evaluate the measured values as a function of an outside temperature based on the teachings of Pallek. Doing so would have enhanced control of the system. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi and Hodges further in view of Ballard et al. (US 4,951,870) (hereinafter “Ballard”).
Regarding Claim 4, to the extent that Claim 4 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action, Nakanishi and Hodges teach the device according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) and Hodges also teaches that the monitoring unit (13) of the combined apparatus would be configured to evaluate the measured values to determine whether a temperature limit value (“predetermined value”) (see [0038]) has been exceeded (“exceeds a predetermine value”) (see [0038] and Figs. 4, 9), wherein in the event that the temperature limit value has been exceeded (as is the case when temperature “exceeds a predetermine value”) (see [0038]), the monitoring unit determines a temperature gradient from the measured values (the temperature gradient between the “predetermined value” and the “exceeded value”) (see at least [0038] and Figs. 4, 9).
Nakanishi and Hodges fail to explicitly teach the monitoring unit compares the determined temperature gradient with a gradient limit value and generates a comparison result, and wherein in the event that the comparison result means that the gradient limit value has been exceeded, the monitoring unit signals an error.
Ballard discloses a relatable furnace device (Fig. 4) for heating air (see at least Abstract and Fig. 4) that comprises a burner (26), a heat exchanger (21) and an air circulation fan (19) that blows air over the heat exchanger (see at least Col. 3 lines 49-68 and Fig. 4). The device also comprises at least one temperature sensor (28, 25, 35) and a monitoring unit (62) that is configured to evaluate values measured by the at least one temperature sensor (see at least Col. 6 line 43 - Col. 7 line 4 and Figs. 3-5). Ballard teaches that the monitoring unit is configured to evaluate the measured values to determine whether a temperature limit value (“temperature limit”) has been exceeded (see at least Abstract and Claim 1), wherein in the event that the temperature limit value has been exceeded (“when said sensed temperature reaches a first predetermined temperature limit”), the monitoring unit determines a temperature gradient from the measured values (the temperature gradient between the “first” and “second” predetermined “limit”) (see Claims 1-2), wherein the monitoring unit compares the determined temperature gradient (the temperature gradient between the “first” and “second” predetermined “limit”) with a gradient limit value (“second predetermined limit above said first predetermined temperature limit”) and generates a comparison result (the comparison that determines if the “second predetermined limit” has been exceed) (see at least Col. 8 lines 23-36 and Claims 1-2), and wherein in the event that the comparison result means that the gradient limit value has been exceeded (when the comparison determines that the “second predetermined limit” has been exceed), the monitoring unit signals an error of the air circulation fan (an error signaled by at least the “lockout condition”) (see at least Col. 8 lines 23-36 and Claims 1-2). Ballard teaches that such arrangement is advantageous because, inter alia, it provides means for determining air circulation fan malfunction and consequently causing a “lockout” for safety as appropriate (see at least Abstract, Col. 2 line 19-42, Col. 6 line 47 - Col. 7 line 4 and Figs. 3-5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined device by configuring the existing monitoring unit of the combined device to compare the determined temperature gradient with a gradient limit value and generate a comparison result, such that in the event that the comparison result means that the gradient limit value has been exceeded, the monitoring unit signals an error as is taught by Ballard. Doing so would have, inter alia, provided means for determining air circulation fan malfunction and consequently causing a lockout for safety as appropriate. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 5, Ballard also teaches that (at least) the temperature limit value (“temperature limit”) is dependent on a selected power level (different levels of “heat” as selected from a “wall thermostat”) (see at least Col. 6 lines 17-35, Col. 8 lines 23-36 and Claims 1-2 and note that relatively higher power level selections correspond to relatively larger temperature limit values and vice-versa).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art is considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use:
Matthews (US 2,952,409)
Nolte et al. (US 5,899,683)
Ballard et al. (US 4,951,870)
Pallek et al. (US 5,513,979
Schmiederer et al. (US 2018/0274782 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 7/6/2026
/GREGORY A WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights