DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 June, 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This Final Rejection is in response to Applicant’s Remarks/ Amendments to filed on 21 April,2026. The amendments have been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over TAKEUCHI et al. (US 2007/0227714 A1), and further in view of, HÄGELE et al. (DE 102018213124 A1).
As to Claim 1, TAKEUCHI discloses a connection tube (2) comprising: multi-row tubes (See Annotated Figure Below) respectively connecting a flow path between a pair of header pipe assemblies (4) disposed to be spaced apart from each other (Fig 1A and 1B, Paragraph 31) and including a plurality of header pipes (4) disposed to be parallel to each other in a second direction, perpendicular to a first direction which is a length direction of the header pipe (4) having the flow path (17) formed therein and a plurality of connection holes (16a,16b,16c) formed in one surface (15),
wherein the multi-row tube includes a plurality of single tubes (6a,6b,6c) respectively extending in the second direction, disposed to be spaced apart from each other in the second direction (Page 8, Paragraphs 30,31 and 32), and having two ends each inserted into the flow path (17) through the connection hole (16a,16b,16c) of the header pipe assembly (Page 8, Paragraph 39), and a wing (8a,8b) connected between the plurality of single tubes (Page 8, Paragraph 34 and 35).
[AltContent: textbox (Connecting Wings, where the end of the wing part is recessed from an end of the single tubes by a predetermined distance in the longitudinal direction)][AltContent: textbox (Multi- Row Tube)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Microchannels)][AltContent: textbox (Single Tubes with plurality of microchannels)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
326
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, TAKEUCHI fails to disclose chamfers that are formed on two edges of each of the two ends of the single tubes.
HÄGELE, however, teaches chamfers (See Annotated Figure Below) on the two edges of heat exchanger tube (Paragraph 2) which functions as a guide or an insertion ramp so as to avoid damage to the tubes during assembly (Paragraph 7).
[AltContent: textbox (Chamfers)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
254
365
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify TAKEUCHI, by creating chamfers on two edges of each of the two ends of the single tubes, as taught by HÄGELE. HÄGELE teaches that in the art of heat exchangers assembly, creating insertion ramps on each longitudinal end of a connection tube through forming chamfers is a known method that yields high quality production by preventing damage to the end of the connection tube (Page 2, Paragraph 7) that would have otherwise got torn when caught in the header pipes during assembly, therefore this known method reliably reduces the rejection rate (Paragraph 7). This is strong evidence that modifying TAKEUCHI as claimed was well within the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and would produce predictable results to one skilled in the art (i.e. to modify TAKEUCHI by adding chamfers to the two edges of the single tube of HÄGELE) to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 1.
As to Claim 2, TAKEUCHI, further discloses that the single tube has a plurality of microchannels (7) formed therein (See Annotated Figure Above, Paragraph 33).
However, TAKEUCHI fails to disclose chamfers that are formed across the microchannel adjacent thereto at each of the two edges of each end of the single tubes.
HÄGELE, however, teaches the chamfer on the two edges of heat exchanger tube (Paragraph 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify TAKEUCHI, by creating chamfers that are formed across the microchannel adjacent thereto at each of the two edges of each end of the single tubes, as taught by HÄGELE. HÄGELE teaches that in the art of heat exchangers assembly, creating insertion ramps on each longitudinal end of a connection tube through forming chamfers is a known method that yields high quality production by preventing damage to the end of the connection tube that would have otherwise got torn when caught in the header pipes during assembly, therefore this known method reliably reduces the rejection rate (Paragraph 7). This is strong evidence that modifying TAKEUCHI as claimed was well within the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and would produce predictable results to one skilled in the art (i.e. to modify TAKEUCHI by adding chamfers that are formed across the microchannel adjacent thereto at each of the two edges of each end of the single tubes.) to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 2.
As to Claim 3, TAKEUCHI, as modified by HÄGELE, further discloses that the tube, wherein when viewed in the first direction, each end of the single tubes has a length (D) allowing the end to be inserted up to at least a central portion of the flow path (Page 9, Paragraph 47 and 49). The single tubes and the header pipe assemblies are independently movable parts that are free to move in the first direction until the end of the insertion pipe contacts the inner wall of the header pipe. Therefore, the length (D) includes at least a central portion of the flow path which is within the range to maintain clearance (19) between ends of the single tube (10) and the inner surface (18) of the header pipe. The reason for maintaining this range is to make sure that the clearance is sufficient for the fluid to flow smoothly (Page 9, Paragraph 47 and 49) and therefore the allowable insertion length of the end of the single tubes is anticipated as specified in Claim 3.
As to Claim 4, TAKEUCHI, as modified by HÄGELE, further discloses wherein when viewed in the first direction, each end of the single tubes has a length (D) allowing the end to be inserted beyond at least the central portion of the flow path, and is spaced apart from an inner wall (18) of the flow path (17) facing the connection hole (16) (See Annotated Figure Below). The single tubes and the header pipe assemblies are independently movable parts that are free to move in the first direction until the end of the insertion tube contacts the inner wall of the header pipe. Therefore, the length (D) includes each end of the single tubes to be inserted beyond at least the central portion of the flow path, and is spaced apart from an inner wall (18) of the flow path (17) facing the connection hole (16). The reason for maintaining this range is to make sure that the clearance is sufficient for the fluid to flow smoothly (Page 9, Paragraph 47 and 49) and therefore the allowable insertion length of the end of the single tubes is anticipated as specified in Claim 4.
As to Claim 5, TAKEUCHI as modified by HÄGELE, further discloses a header pipe, and when viewed in the first direction, each end of the single tubes has a length allowing the end to be inserted in a range of 0.5 to 0.75 of a diameter of the flow path (Paragraph 47 and 49). The single tubes and the header pipe assemblies are independently movable parts that are free to move in the first direction until the end of the insertion pipe contacts the inner wall of the header pipe. Therefore, the length (D) includes each end of the single tubes that has a length allowing the end to be inserted in a range of 0.5 to 0.75 of a diameter of the flow path. The reason for maintaining this range is to make sure that the clearance is sufficient for the fluid to flow smoothly (Page 9, Paragraph 47 and 49) and therefore the allowable insertion length of the end of the single tubes is anticipated as specified in Claim 5.
However, TAKEUCHI does not disclose that the header pipe has a circular cross section. However, a skilled artisan would have recognized that choosing a header pipe with circular cross-section would have been an obvious matter of design choice as header pipes with circular cross-section is a known design choice in the art of heat exchangers that is effective against a fracture internal pressure. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e. to choose a header pipe with circular cross-section, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e. benefit of choosing a circular cross-section header pipe effective against a fracture internal pressure, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1742,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify TAKEUCHI, by choosing header pipe with circular cross section, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143 -(I)(E).
As to Claim 6, TAKEUCHI, as modified by HÄGELE, further discloses, wherein when the single tubes (6a,6b,6c) are inserted into the flow path (17), an insertion length (D) of the end of the single tubes with respect to the flow path is limited by contact between an end of the wing (8a,8b) and an outer surface of the header pipe (12) (Page 9, Paragraph 43, lines 7-18) (See Annotated Figure Below).
As to Claim 7, TAKEUCHI, as modified by HÄGELE, further discloses, wherein the plurality of wings (8a,8b) is provided, and the plurality of the wings have the same length (Page 8, Paragraph 37, lines 24-32) in a third direction (See Annotated Figure Below).
[AltContent: textbox (Plurality of the wings have the same length in a third direction)][AltContent: textbox (Insertion Length is limited by contact between an end of the Wing and an outer surface of the header pipe)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Inserting margin length D can be determined along with the dimension of the clearance (19) to allow the fluid to smoothly flow)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
212
332
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over KANEKO et al. (2018/0216892 A1), and further in view of, TAKEUCHI et al. (US 2007/0227714 A1) and HÄGELE et al. (DE 102018213124 A1).
As to Claim 8, KANEKO, as modified by TAKEUCHI and HÄGELE, discloses a condenser (1) comprising: a first header pipe assembly (10) and a second header pipe assembly (10) disposed to be spaced apart from each other and each including a plurality of header pipes disposed to be parallel to each other in a second direction, perpendicular to a first direction which is a length direction of the header pipe having a flow path formed therein and a plurality of connection holes (15) formed in one surface (Figure 1); and
The connection tube (20) which connects the flow path of the first header pipe assembly (10) and that of the second header pipe assembly (10) to each other, and extends in a third direction, perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction.
However, KANEKO does not explicitly disclose the type of connection tube which comprises multi row tubes respectively connecting a flow path between a pair of header pipe assemblies disposed to be spaced apart from each other and including a plurality of header pipes disposed to be parallel to each other in a second direction, perpendicular to a first direction which is a length direction of the header pipe having the flow path formed therein and a plurality of connection holes formed in one surface, wherein the multi-row tube includes a plurality of single tubes respectively extending in the second direction, disposed to be spaced apart from each other in the second direction, and having two ends each inserted into the flow path through the connection hole of the header pipe assembly, and a wing connected between the plurality of single tubes,
and chamfers are formed on two edges of each of the two ends of the single tubes.
However, TAKEUCHI as modified by HÄGELE teaches a connection tube (2) comprising: multi-row tubes (See Annotated Figures Below Claim 1) respectively connecting a flow path between a pair of header assemblies (4) disposed to be spaced apart from each other (Fig 1A and 1B, Paragraph 31) wherein, the multi-row tubes include a plurality of single tubes (6a,6b,6c) spaced (Paragraph 32) apart from each other and having two ends each inserted into the flow path (17) through the connection hole (16a,16b,16c) of the header assembly, and a wing (8a,8b) connected between the plurality of single tubes. The single tube has a plurality of microchannels (7) formed therein (See Annotated Figure Below Claim 1, Paragraph 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the connection tube of KANEKO further by the teachings of TAKEUCHI and HÄGELE to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 8.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over KANEKO et al. (2018/0216892 A1), and further in view of, TAKEUCHI et al. (US 2007/0227714 A1), HÄGELE et al. (DE 102018213124 A1), and SEO et al. (US 10627165 B2).
As to Claim 9, KANEKO as modified by TAKEUCHI, and HÄGELE discloses a condenser (1) comprising: a connection block (15) extending in the first direction, disposed between and in contact with the respective header pipes, and having a plurality of flow holes (15c) (Figure 10, Page 21, Paragraph 52, lines 28-40) passing through two surfaces of the connection block that are in contact with the header pipes (See Annotated Figure Below);
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Connection Blocks with plurality of flow holes that are in contact with the Header pipes)]
PNG
media_image4.png
739
340
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, KANEKO does not explicitly disclose a fixing baffle disposed on two sides of the header pipe assembly in the first direction, and including a plurality of blocking parts blocking the flow path of the header pipe and spaced apart from each other in the second direction, and a fixing part connecting the plurality of blocking parts to each other.
SEO, However, teaches a fixing baffle (143,144,145,146) disposed on the header pipe assembly (100), and includes a plurality of blocking parts blocking flow path of the header pipe (Page 22, Column 7, lines 49-53) and spaced apart from each other in the second direction, and a fixing part connecting the plurality of blocking parts to each other (See Annotated Figure Below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the two ends of the header assembly of KANEKO by the teachings of SEO that uses fixing baffle to block the flow path of the header pipe. SEO teaches the use of fixing baffle to create partitions and separate the inside of the header to form different flow paths respectively (Page 22, Column 7, lines 5-10), this is strong evidence that modifying KANEKO as claimed was well within the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and would produce predictable results to one skilled in the art (i.e. to modify KANEKO by adding fixing baffles to the two edges of the single tube) to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 9.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Fixing Part connecting the plurality of blocking parts to each other )]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Blocking Parts, blocking the flow path of the header pipe)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Fixing Baffles at the upper and lower ends of the header pipe)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image5.png
527
390
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and arguments, filed 21 April, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1,2,4,6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Regarding amended claim 1, A connection tube comprising multi-row tubes respectively connecting a flow path between a pair of header pipe assemblies disposed to be spaced apart from each other and including a plurality of header pipes disposed to be parallel to each other in a second direction, perpendicular to a first direction which is a length direction of the header pipe having the flow path formed therein and a plurality of connection holes formed in one surface, wherein the multi-row tube includes a plurality of single tubes respectively extending in the second direction, disposed to be spaced apart from each other in the second direction, and having two ends each inserted into the flow path through the connection hole of the header pipe assembly, and a wing connected between the plurality of single tubes, and chamfers are formed on two edges of each of the two ends of the single tubes, wherein each chamfer is formed at a corner portion of each end of the single tube so as to extend across an opening region of an internal flow channel of the single tube, and is configured to guide insertion of the end into the connection hole while reducing interference with an inner edge of the connection hole.
TAKEUCHI as modified by HÄGELE in combination teaches that each chamfer is formed at a corner portion of each end of the single tube so as to extend across an opening region of an internal flow channel of the single tube (Figure 1 and 2, HÄGELE), and is configured to guide insertion of the end into the connection hole while reducing interferences with an inner edge of the connection hole.
Applicant argues on page 5 that TAKEUCHI, as modified by HÄGELE does not teach chamfers that are formed on both edges of each tube and are structurally associated with internal microchannels,
In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986), (See MPEP §2145 - IV). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, and in many cases will be able to fit teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. Furthermore, “The test of obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference…. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”
In the instant case HÄGELE provides motivation to chamfer both edges of each tube of TAKEUCHI so that they are structurally associated with internal microchannels.
Regarding amended claim 2, The tube of claim 1, wherein the single tube has a plurality of microchannels formed therein, and the chamfer is formed so as to intersect and expose at least a portion of at least one of the microchannel at each of the two edges of each end of the single tubes. TAKEUCHI as modified by HÄGELE in combination still teaches the chamfer formed so as to intersect and expose at least a portion of at least one of the microchannel at each of the two edges of each end of the single tubes.
Applicant also states on page 5 that regarding claim 1, TAKEUCHI, as modified by HÄGELE does not teach that the chamfers are configured to intersect and expose at least a portion of the internal microchannels, rather than merely interacting therewith,
In response, it can be seen that the limitation “the chamfers are configured to intersect and expose at least a portion of the internal microchannels, rather than merely interacting therewith” was not claimed by original claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Claims to a superconducting magnet which generates a "uniform magnetic field" were not limited to the degree of magnetic field uniformity required for Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) imaging. Although the specification disclosed that the claimed magnet may be used in an NMR apparatus, the claims were not so limited.); Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571-72, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064-1065 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 (1988) (Various limitations on which appellant relied were not stated in the claims; the specification did not provide evidence indicating these limitations must be read into the claims to give meaning to the disputed terms.); Ex parte McCullough, 7 USPQ2d 1889, 1891 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (Claimed electrode was rejected as obvious despite assertions that electrode functions differently than would be expected when used in nonaqueous battery since "although the demonstrated results may be germane to the patentability of a battery containing appellant’s electrode, they are not germane to the patentability of the invention claimed on appeal.").
Original claim 1 does not mention microchannels, and the amended claim 1 still does not mention microchannels (See MPEP §2145 – VI). However, in the interest of compact prosecution, amended claim 2 mentions microchannels, TAKEUCHI as modified by HÄGELE in combination still teaches that the chamfers extend across an opening region of the internal flow channel (figures 1 and 2 of HÄGELE), which suggests that the chamfers are in fact configured to intersect and expose at least a portion of the internal microchannels, rather than merely interacting therewith.
Applicant states on page 6 that regarding claim 1,TAKEUCHI, as modified by HÄGELE does not teach that the connection tube includes a multi-row structure in which a plurality of single tubes is integrally connected via wings, designed for coordinated insertion and alignment; each tube end is inserted beyond a central portion of the flow path while being spaced apart from an inner wall to maintain fluid flow; and the insertion depth is regulated by contact between the wing and the outer surface of the header pipe, thereby ensuring consistent positioning.
In response to applicant’s arguments those limitations were not claimed by original claim 1 (See MPEP §2145 – VI), Furthermore, applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986), (See MPEP §2145 - IV). In the instant case TAKEUCHI, as modified by HÄGELE in combination teaches all the limitations mentioned above (See Non-Final Rejection).
Regarding amended claim 4, The tube of claim 3, wherein when viewed in the first direction, each end of the single tubes has a length allowing the end to be inserted beyond at least the central portion of the flow path, and is spaced apart from an inner wall of the flow path facing the connection hole, such that a flow passage is maintained between the end of the single tube and the inner wall. TAKEUCHI as modified by HÄGELE in combination still teaches the spacing such that a flow passage is maintained between the end of the single tube and the inner wall (See Non-Final Rejection).
Regarding amended claim 6, The tube of claim 1, wherein when the single tubes are inserted into the flow path, an insertion length of the end of the single tubes with respect to the flow path is limited by contact between an end of the wing and an outer surface of the header pipe, thereby defining a consistent insertion depth of the single tubes. TAKEUCHI as modified by HÄGELE still teaches defining consistent insertion depth of the single tubes (See Non-Final Rejection).
Regarding amended claim 8, A condenser comprising: a first header pipe assembly and a second header pipe assembly disposed to be spaced apart from each other and each including a plurality of header pipes disposed to be parallel to each other in a second direction, perpendicular to a first direction which is a length direction of the header pipe having a flow path formed therein and a plurality of connection holes formed in one surface; and the connection tube according to claim 1,which connects the flow path of the first header pipe assembly and that of the second header pipe assembly to each other, and extends in a third direction, perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction. KANEKO as modified by TAKEUCHI and HÄGELE in combination still teaches the limitations of claim 8 (See Non-Final Rejection).
Applicant further states on page 6 " HÄGELE merely discloses a general chamfer for facilitating insertion and does not disclose or suggest any relationship with microchannels or the specific positional configuration" – (See MPEP §2145 – IV) Applicant appears to individually argue against the references wherein the combination of TAKEUCHI, in view of HÄGELE provides the relationship of the chambers to the microchannels and the specific positional configuration.
Further, Applicant does not provide any evidence just statements (See MPEP §2145 -I). "TAKEUCHI discloses individual flat tubes and does not disclose or suggest the above-described integrated multi-row structure or insertion control configuration" Applicant again appear to individually argue without specifically pointing out why the combination does not disclose the claimed invention.
Further, HÄGELE provides the chamfers at the corners of each tube, so as to position them at the corners of tubes 6a, 6b, and 6c of TAKEUCHI. HÄGELE teaches the chamfer extends across an opening region of the internal flow channel (figures 1 and 2 of HÄGELE), in addition "is configured to guide insertion while reducing interference with an inner edge of the connection hole" is provided by the structure of TAKEUCHI, in view of HÄGELE. This limitation is a result of the structure, the combination provides the structure, such that it provides this function/result (See MPEP §2114 – II).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIGYAN BHATTACHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8767. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 5 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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BIGYAN BHATTACHAN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights