DETAILED ACTION
Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Final Office Action is in Reply to the arguments/amendment (hereinafter “Response”) dated 10/21/2025. Claim(s) 1-7, 10-14, and 16-21 are presently pending. Claim(s) 1, 4, and 19 is/are amended. Claim(s) 8-9 and 15 is/have been cancelled.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claim(s) 4-6, 15, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is/are withdrawn in light of the submitted amendment to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection of claim(s) 1-4, 10-11, and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jensen (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0093253 A1), with evidence provided by Yokai (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2007/0201176 A1), the applicant(s) first argue that this reference does not teach the step of making a direct measurement of the temperature of the critical component, which applicant(s) allege to be required by the claims.
The Office respectfully considers this argument not persuasive. It should first be noted that neither the limitations of claim 1 nor any dependent claim require that the measurement of the temperature of the critical component be a “direct measurement,” nor is it clear within the claims or specification what a “direct measurement” would entail. Rather, the claims require “a first temperature sensor arranged and configured to measure the temperature of the critical component.” Subsequent claim 2 allows for the first temperature sensor to be “in the vicinity of the critical component”, thus the claims themselves establish that the first temperature sensor need not be in direct contact with the critical component of interest in order to make a measurement of the temperature of the critical component, as claimed. Jensen teaches a process by which a dual-temperature sensor unit (14) is provided in the vicinity of several critical components (including the microcontroller 17), each sensor within being configured to obtain temperature measurements (Ta, Tm) of the region/medium surrounding the several critical components that are used as input to a model which estimates the temperature of each critical component ([0047-0052]). While the first temperature sensor of Jensen is not measuring a single critical component in isolation of the others, it is nevertheless configured to (capable of) making a measurement of the temperature of the region surrounding the critical component of interest, and thereby obtaining a measurement of the critical component’s temperature. Such “indirect” measurements are common place within the art and common engineering practice. The laws which govern heat transfer from one or more hot components into their surrounding region are well known within the art. These laws and/or experimental observations often form the basis in engineering practice for modeling which is used to obtain quite accurate estimates of component temperature based upon the output of temperature sensors that are placed in the vicinity of components of interest. Jensen teaches exactly such an arrangement, thus Jensen meets the claimed limitations.
Applicant(s) also argue that, by teaching the “indirect” measurement and modeling configuration described above, Jensen necessarily teaches away from any other viable solution to the problem of measuring the temperature of the critical component.
The Office respectfully considers this argument not persuasive. The standard for “teaching away” set forth in MPEP 2141.02 requires that the prior art must “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.” In other words, in order for a prior art reference to be considered to teach away from the claimed solution, it must provide a direct teaching that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to view the claimed solution as unsuitable. A reference does not teach away from one possible solution merely by teaching that a different solution is advantageous. While Jensen does teach that the use of two temperature sensors provided in the vicinity of the critical component(s) alongside modeling represents an advantageous solution to the problem of measuring the temperature of these components, Jensen provides no teaching against the use of, for example, a single temperature sensor that is in direct contact with one of the critical component(s) as an alternative or parallel means of obtaining the temperature of a critical component. As such, Jensen does not teach away from such a proposed modification.
Applicant(s) further argue that neither Jensen, nor any of the prior cited modifying references, teach that the performance derating curve is stored in the controller.
The Office respectfully considers this argument persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made regarding claims 1-5, 10-11, 13-14, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0093253 A1) in view of Grossmann (FR3007595A1), of claims 6, 12, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen as modified by Grossmann, and in further view of Koehl (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0334810 A1), and of claims 7 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen as modified by Grossmann, and in further view of Anderson (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0078960 A1), wherein Grossmann teaches that a performance derating curve may be stored in the controller.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-11, 13-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0093253 A1) in view of Grossmann (FR3007595A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jensen discloses a method of controlling a power limit of a circulating pump (pump device 1) comprising critical electrical components (LCD 16, microcontroller 17, power module 15, and rectifier 13) mounted on a printed circuit board (8) of the circulating pump (see Fig. 1B and [0043-0045]), wherein the critical component is a microprocessor (microcontroller 17, one of the several critical components whose temperatures are measured and monitored), and - a first temperature sensor (portion of dual sensor 14 which measures Ta) arranged and configured to measure (indirectly) the temperature of the critical components (see Fig. 1B and 2, and [0044], wherein the dual sensor 14 is provided in the vicinity of the multiple critical electrical components to measure an ambient temperature Ta reflective of the temperatures of the critical electrical components), the method comprising: - monitoring the temperature of the critical components by use of the first temperature sensor ([0047-0049] – here the signal Ta from the first portion of the dual sensor 14 is a measure of the ambient temperature in the vicinity of the multiple critical electrical components and is used alongside mathematical models to obtain an estimated temperature of each critical component), - using an output signal (Ta) from the first temperature sensor as a first temperature input signal to a controller (microcontroller 17, see [0006] and [0030-0031], wherein it is clear that the output signal Ta of the first portion of the dual sensor 14 is used as an input to the mathematical thermal model used by the microcontroller – the only component on the circuit board of Jensen capable of being programmed to store and use such a model – to calculate and impose a power limit based upon the temperature of the critical electronic components), - by use of the controller and based on the first temperature input signal, controlling the power limit (P) of the circulating pump in accordance with a performance derating curve (see Fig. 3, and [0046-0052]) for the circulating pump while continuing the operation of the circulating pump (see [0005-0032], and [0046-0052]). While Jensen does not explicitly disclose that the performance derating curve is stored in the controller (microcontroller 17), it is well known within the art to provide such a derating curve as stored within the memory of such a controller. For example, Grossmann exhibits a method and arrangement for controlling an electrically powered device, such as an electrical motor ([0003]), using a controller (control unit 12, comprising microcontroller 22) which measures the temperature of the device (via sensor 28, see [0009]) and reduces power provided to the device if the measured temperature is deemed excessive based upon a performance derating curve that is stored in the controller ([0004-0006], [0007], ln 46-51, and [0009]). Grossmann further teaches that storing the performance derating curve in the controller allows it to be modified or updated in a simplified manner ([0006], ln 22-26). Based on this common practice within the art, and because Jensen does not explicitly discloses where the performance derating curve is stored, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to embody the controller of Jensen as comprising the performance derating curve stored in the controller, thereby providing a self-contained device that need not connect to an external device or network to operate and in which the performance derating curve may be easily modified or updated, as taught by Grossmann ([0006], ln 22-26).
Regarding claim 2, Jensen further discloses that the first temperature sensor is arranged in the vicinity of the microprocessor (microcontroller 17) (see Fig. 1B-2 and [0044-0045]).
Regarding claim 3, Jensen further discloses that the first temperature sensor is arranged in the vicinity of the microprocessor (microcontroller 17) and connected to an electrical circuit of the printed circuit board (see Fig. 1B-2 and [0044-0045], wherein the dual temperature sensor 14 must be connected to the electrical circuit of the printed circuit board 8 in order to thereby provide output Ta and Tm to the microcontroller).
Regarding claim 4, Jensen further discloses that the circulating pump is controlled to operate at a nominal power level Pnom when the temperature of the microprocessor (microcontroller 17), among other critical components also, is below a predetermined maximum (critical) temperature (see Fig. 3 and [0046-0052], wherein the power limit 19 imposed by the microcontroller 17 is varied according to the measured temperatures of the critical components as estimated from Ta and Tm, such that when the measured temperatures of the critical components are all below a predetermined maximum temperature for each component, the pump is allowed to operate at a nominal power level within the region at or above the nominal power limit 20), and to switch in a stepwise or continuous manner to a constant lower power level Plow , when the temperature of the critical component reaches or exceeds the critical temperature (see power limit 19 of Fig. 3 and [0046-0052], which is reduced below the nominal power limit 20 when Ta or Tm exceed a maximum critical component temperature for one of the given critical electrical components, the power limit then being constant with respect to measured temperature, such that for a high and constant measured Ta, a constant power limit 19 will be imposed, resulting in a constant lower power level of the pump in operation). Here, it should further be noted that any possible manner of switching power levels may be described as either being stepwise or continuous in at least some portion of the change, however the continuous relationship between the power limit 19 and the measured temperatures of the electrical components in Fig. 3 suggests that the power limit - and thereby the power level during operation at full capacity – of the pump of Jensen is reduced/increased in a continuous manner to reflect continuous changes in the measured temperature of the electrical components.
Regarding claim 5, while Jensen does not explicitly teach that Plow / Pnom may be in the range of 0.65-0.95, Jensen teaches a known relationship between the power limit of the pump and the measured temperature of its critical electrical components. Specifically, Jensen teaches that the power limit 19 is linearly reduced in magnitude as the measured temperature of the relays of the power module 15 or other such critical electrical components increases (see Fig. 3 and [0051]-0052]). Jensen does not teach a minimum power level which may be set, but rather present the power level calculation as a continuous linear function of measured temperature (see [0051]). It therefore follows that for a certain range of measured temperatures of the relays, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious based on the mathematical relationship taught by Jensen to set the power limit 19 such that the power of the pump is limited to within the range of Plow / Pnom equals between 0.65 and 0.95 as a matter of routine design optimization, there being a known (predictable) relationship and mathematical function governing the proper power limit of the pump with increasing temperature.
Regarding claim 10, Jensen further discloses that the printed circuit board is arranged in a pump control box (7) comprising the controller (see Fig. 1A-1B and [0043-0044]).
Regarding claim 11, Jensen further discloses that the controller is integrated in the circulating pump (see Fig. 1A-1B and [0043-0044]).
Regarding claim 13, Jensen further discloses that the circulating pump further comprises at least one second temperature sensor (the second portion of the dual sensor 14, which measures Tm) arranged and configured to provide a second temperature input signal (Tm) containing information about the temperature of the critical component to the controller (see Fig. 1B, [0005-0006], and [0044-0048], wherein the media temperature Tm is a second input to the mathematical thermal model used to estimate the temperatures of the critical electrical components, including the microcontroller 17) for use in the controlling of the power limit of the circulating pump ([0049-0052]).
Regarding claim 14, Jensen further discloses that the second temperature input signal is used for monitoring the output signal from the first temperature sensor (see [0044-0048], wherein both the output of the first temperature sensor, Ta , and the output of the second temperature sensor, Tm , are used to estimate the temperature of the same electrical components, and see [0053-0055], wherein Jensen describes these two temperature sensors as a redundancy in measurement – i.e. either sensor can be used if one fails – thereby each sensor monitors/compares with the output of the other).
Regarding claim 16, Jensen further discloses a system for controlling a power limit of a circulating pump by use of the method of claim 1 (see in re claim 1, and see [0044-0045]).
Regarding claim 17, while Jensen does not explicitly teach that Plow / Pnom may be in the range of 0.70-0.90, Jensen teaches a known relationship between the power limit of the pump and the measured temperature of its critical electrical components. Specifically, Jensen teaches that the power limit 19 is linearly reduced in magnitude as the measured temperature of the relays of the power module 15 or other such critical electrical components increases (see Fig. 3 and [0051]-0052]). Jensen does not teach a minimum power level which may be set, but rather present the power level calculation as a continuous linear function of measured temperature (see [0051]). It therefore follows that for a certain range of measured temperatures of the relays, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious based on the mathematical relationship taught by Jensen to set the power limit 19 such that the power of the pump is limited to within the range of Plow / Pnom equals between 0.70 and 0.90 as a matter of routine design optimization, there being a known (predictable) relationship and mathematical function governing the proper power limit of the pump with increasing temperature.
Regarding claim 18, while Jensen does not explicitly teach that Plow / Pnom may be 0.83, Jensen teaches a known relationship between the power limit of the pump and the measured temperature of its critical electrical components. Specifically, Jensen teaches that the power limit 19 is linearly reduced in magnitude as the measured temperature of the relays of the power module 15 or other such critical electrical components increases (see Fig. 3 and [0051]-0052]). Jensen does not teach a minimum power level which may be set, but rather present the power level calculation as a continuous linear function of measured temperature (see [0051]). It therefore follows that for a certain range of measured temperatures of the relays, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious based on the mathematical relationship taught by Jensen to set the power limit 19 such that the power of the pump is limited to Plow / Pnom equals 0.83 as a matter of routine design optimization, there being a known (predictable) relationship and mathematical function governing the proper power limit of the pump with increasing temperature, resulting therefor in a similar predictable relationship between the operating power level of the pump (governed by the power limit) and the measured temperature of the relays of the power module 15 and other critical electronics, thereby rendering the power level a result effective variable within the context of the method taught by Jensen. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim(s) 6, 12, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen as modified by Grossmann according to claims 1 and 4, and in further view of Koehl (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0334810 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Jensen as modified by Grossmann according to claim 4 exhibits the method according to claim 4. Jensen fails to teach that the switching between the nominal and lower power levels takes place within 0.1 to 60 seconds, Jensen being silent as to the speed at which the power level of the pump is changed in response to changes in measured temperature of the relays of the power module 15 and other critical electrical components. Yet, Jensen aims to prevent the microprocessor and other critical electrical components from being damaged or destroyed by overheating, thereby necessitating a quick response to detected overheating ([0003], lines 1-5). Further, it is well known within the art that pumps such as that of Jensen are capable of quickly drawing down the power supplied to the pump motor. For example, Koehl exhibits an electric pump (10) similar to the pump of Jensen, comprising an electric motor (16) controlled by a controller arrangement (control system 14), the controller arrangement comprising a microcontroller (28) similar to that of Jensen (see [0031]). Koehl teaches that the controller may be configured to, among other tasks, control the power level of the electric pump by reducing the power level or completely shutting down the pump in response to a measured temperature at a temperature sensor (19) provided in the vicinity of critical components of the controller (at the controller heat sink - see Fig. 1 and [0034], ln 1-2) exceeding predetermined thresholds ([0034], ln 24-35 and [0085]), in order to thereby prevent overheating of the critical components. Koehl further teaches that a significant change in power level may occur within about 1 second ([0068-0069]) and that power down operations should be done as quickly as possible without causing the pump motor to experience regeneration ([0069], ln 1-7).
Based upon the teachings and example of Koehl, and because Jensen does not specify any specific time frame for the process of switching between the nominal and lower power levels, it would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to implement the method of Jensen such that the switching between the nominal and lower power levels takes place within about 1 second, since such a time frame is exemplified by Koehl to be a practical timeframe for power change within such a pump (Koehl, [0068-0069]), and since such a quick response is clearly desirable in order to prevent the microprocessor and other critical electrical components from being damaged or destroyed by overheating, as discussed in Jensen ([0003], lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 12, Jensen as modified by Grossmann according to claim 1 exhibits the method according to claim 1 (see in re claim 1). Jensen fails to teach that the first temperature input signal received from the first temperature sensor is the only information about temperature used by the controller in the controlling of the power limit of the circulating pump.
The concept of using a single temperature sensor to determine the temperature of the critical electronics in a pump controller, rather than a dual sensor like that of Jensen, however, is well known in the art. Koehl exhibits an electric pump (10) similar to the pump of Jensen, comprising an electric motor (16) controlled by a controller arrangement (control system 14), the controller arrangement comprising a microcontroller (28) similar to that of Jensen (see [0031]). Koehl teaches that the pump may further comprise a single temperature sensor (19) located in the vicinity of the critical components of the controller (at the controller heat sink - see Fig. 1 and [0034], ln 1-2) and configured to measure the temperature of the controller critical components, such as the microcontroller ([0034]), in a similar manner to the dual sensor of Jensen. Koehl also teaches that the controller may be configured to, among other tasks, control the power level of the electric pump by reducing the power level or completely shutting down the pump in response to the measured temperature at the single temperature sensor exceeding predetermined thresholds ([0034], ln 24-35 and [0085]).
Based on the teachings and example of Koehl, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Jensen by replacing the dual sensor arrangement of Jensen with the simpler single temperature sensor configuration of Koehl, such that the controller of Jensen may control the power limit of the circulating pump in accordance with the same performance derating curve, but based upon measurement and monitoring of a single first temperature input signal received from a single first temperature sensor, as taught by Koehl, as the only information about temperature used by the controller in the controlling of the power limit of the circulating pump. Such a modification would be obvious as a matter of simple substitution of one known arrangement (the single temperature sensor arranged in the vicinity of the microprocessor as taught by Koehl) for obtaining the temperature of the critical components for another (the dual temperature sensor arrangement of Jensen) in order to obtain predictable results – functionally equivalent measurement of the critical components of Jenson, including the microprocessor (microcontroller 17). See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 19, Jensen as modified by Grossmann and Koehl according to claim 6 exhibits the method according to claim 6. As described above, Jensen fails to teach that the switching between the nominal and lower power levels takes place within 0.1 to 20 seconds, Jensen being silent as to the speed at which the power level of the pump is changed in response to changes in measured temperature of the relays of the power module 15 and other critical electrical components. However, as described above (see in re claim 6), based upon the teachings and example of Koehl, and because Jensen does not specify any specific time frame for the process of switching between the nominal and lower power levels, it would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to implement the method of Jensen such that the switching between the nominal and lower power levels takes place within about 1 second, since such a time frame is exemplified by Koehl to be a practical timeframe for power change within such a pump (Koehl, [0068-0069]), and since such a quick response is clearly desirable in order to prevent the microprocessor and other critical electrical components from being damaged or destroyed by overheating, as discussed in Jensen ([0003], lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 20, Jensen as modified by Grossmann and Koehl according to claim 19 exhibits the method according to claim 19. As described above, Jensen fails to teach that the switching between the nominal and lower power levels takes place within 0.1 to 5 seconds, Jensen being silent as to the speed at which the power level of the pump is changed in response to changes in measured temperature of the relays of the power module 15 and other critical electrical components. However, as described above (see in re claim 6), based upon the teachings and example of Koehl, and because Jensen does not specify any specific time frame for the process of switching between the nominal and lower power levels, it would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to implement the method of Jensen such that the switching between the nominal and lower power levels takes place within about 1 second, since such a time frame is exemplified by Koehl to be a practical timeframe for power change within such a pump (Koehl, [0068-0069]), and since such a quick response is clearly desirable in order to prevent the microprocessor and other critical electrical components from being damaged or destroyed by overheating, as discussed in Jensen ([0003], lines 1-5).
Claim(s) 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen as modified by Grossmann according to claim 1, and in further view of Anderson (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0078960 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Jensen as modified by Grossmann according to claim 1 exhibits the method according to claim 1. Jensen fails to explicitly teach that the first temperature sensor is arranged within 20 mm from the critical component, teaching merely that the first temperature sensor is arranged in the vicinity of the critical electrical components, including the relays of the power module 15 (see Fig. 1B-2 and [0044-0045]). However, it is well known within the art that a temperature sensor may be placed within close proximity to a target object in order to accurately measure its temperature.
Anderson, for example, exhibits a system and method for operating a pumping device (airless paint sprayer) similar to that of Jensen (see Fig. 1-4B and [0001]), wherein the system comprises a microcontroller (microprocessor of control circuit 30) designed to receive input from a number of temperature sensors measuring the temperature of critical components within the device in order to thereby reduce the power level of the device if a measured temperature becomes excessive, thereby preventing overheating ([0005], [0013], ln 21-30, and [0014]). Anderson further teaches that microcontrollers of this type may include an internally arranged temperature sensor (60), and that such a sensor may be monitored by the microcontroller as part of the overheating prevention control process just described ([0014-0015]).
Thus, based on the teachings and example of Anderson, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to provide the microcontroller of Jensen as including an internally arranged temperature sensor, as is taught by Anderson, that may be monitored by the microcontroller in addition to or in place of the sensors already described by Jensen as part of the overheating prevention control process described by Jensen, in order to thereby ensure an accurate measurement of the microcontroller temperature, thereby helping to prevent this critical component from overheating, as is the goal of Jensen. Upon such a modification, Jensen exhibits that the first temperature sensor is arranged within 20 mm from the critical component (microcontroller 17).
Regarding claim 21, Jensen as modified by Grossmann according to claim 1 exhibits the method according to claim 1. Jensen fails to explicitly teach that the first temperature sensor is arranged within 5 mm from the critical component, teaching merely that the first temperature sensor is arranged in the vicinity of the critical electrical components, including the relays of the power module 15 (see Fig. 1B-2 and [0044-0045]). However, it is well known within the art that a temperature sensor may be placed within close proximity to a target object in order to accurately measure its temperature.
Anderson, for example, exhibits a system and method for operating a pumping device (airless paint sprayer) similar to that of Jensen (see Fig. 1-4B and [0001]), wherein the system comprises a microcontroller (microprocessor of control circuit 30) designed to receive input from a number of temperature sensors measuring the temperature of critical components within the device in order to thereby reduce the power level of the device if a measured temperature becomes excessive, thereby preventing overheating ([0005], [0013], ln 21-30, and [0014]). Anderson further teaches that microcontrollers of this type may include an internally arranged temperature sensor (60), and that such a sensor may be monitored by the microcontroller as part of the overheating prevention control process just described ([0014-0015]).
Thus, based on the teachings and example of Anderson, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to provide the microcontroller of Jensen as including an internally arranged temperature sensor, as is taught by Anderson, that may be monitored by the microcontroller in addition to or in place of the sensors already described by Jensen as part of the overheating prevention control process described by Jensen, in order to thereby ensure an accurate measurement of the microcontroller temperature, thereby helping to prevent this critical component from overheating, as is the goal of Jensen. Upon such a modification, Jensen exhibits that the first temperature sensor is arranged within 5 mm from the critical component (microcontroller 17).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric A Lange whose telephone number is (571)272-9202. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-noon and 1pm-5:30pm.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached on (571) 270-1744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC A LANGE/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/CHELSEA E STINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783