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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected because the term “the polarization time” should be “the predetermined polarization time”
Claim 4 is objected because the term “the depolarization time” should be “the predetermined depolarization time”
The limitation of “the spacing” in claim 17 should be “the predefined spacing.”
Claim 18 is objected because of typo “counter elect”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because the limitation of “the discharge electrode” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 2–5 are indefinite because they depend on claim 1.
Claim 2 is indefinite because the limitation of “the conductive layer”, “the discharge electrode” lack antecedent basis.
Claims 3–4 are indefinite because they depend on claim 2.
Claim 3 is indefinite because the term “the counter-potential” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 4 is indefinite because it depends on claim 3.
Claim 5 is indefinite because the term “the discharge electrode” “the counter electrode” “the counter potential” “the conductive layer” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6 is indefinite because the limitation of “the discharge electrodes and dedicated counter electrodes”, “the discharge electrodes” lack antecedent basis.
Claims 7–19 are indefinite because they depend on claim 6.
Claims 7–8 are indefinite because the term “the tips” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 9 is indefinite because the term “the counter electrodes” “the discharge electrodes” ‘the dedicated counter electrodes” lacks antecedent basis.
The limitation of “the conductive layer”, “the counter-potential” and “the electrical connection” in claim 10 lack antecedent basis.
Claim 11 is indefinite because the limitation of “the air filtering process” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 12 is indefinite because the term “the conductive layer” “the discharge electrode” lack antecedent basis.
Claim 13 is indefinite because the limitation of “the dielectric layer” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 14 is indefinite because the limitation of “the conductive layer” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 15–16 are indefinite because the limitation of “the dielectric layer” and “the conductive layer” lack antecedent basis.
Claim 17 is indefinite because the limitation of “the upstream needles” “the upstream side” “the needle substrate” “the downstream needles” “the downstream side” “the at least one downstream needle” lack antecedent basis. Claim 17 is also indefinite because the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(D).
Claim 18 is indefinite because it is unclear if the claimed “a corona discharge field”, “at least polarized discharge electrode” “at least one counter electrode” are the same as that recited in claim 6. The term “the discharge electrode” lacks antecedent basis.
The claims are replete with antecedent basis issues and inconsistently used terms. Please make sure all those issues are taken care before resubmitting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pradler et al., US 2023/0249195 A1 (“Pradler”).
Regarding claim 1:
Pradler discloses that an air filtering process for a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system (HVAC system), in a motor vehicle (Pradler discloses an air purification unit 1 in vehicle, the air filtering process of Pradler’s air purifier as shown in Fig. 1 read on the claim, Pradler Fig. 1, [0065]), comprising
an air flow (Pradler discloses flow V, Pradler Fig. 1, [0065]) polluted with particles (Pradler discloses air to be purified is contaminated with pollutants and harmful particles, Pradler Fig. 1, [0065]) first flows through an ionizer (Pradler’s ionizer 20, Pradler Fig. 1, [0066]) and then through a particle filter (Pradler’s mechanical filter module 3, Pradler Fig. 1, [0067]),
the ionizer (20 of Pradler) generates a corona discharge field (Pradler discloses its electrode plates comprising electrically conductive needle extension, Pradler [0025], indicating that corona discharge is generated) with at least one polarized discharge electrode (Pradler’s second electrodes 24, Pradler Fig. 1, [0066]) and at least one counter electrode (Pradler’s first electrodes 22, Pradler Fig. 1, [0066]) that has the opposite polarization of the discharge electrode (Pradler discloses its first electrode and second electrode are anodes and cathodes respectively),
the air flow (V of Pradler) to be filtered passes through the corona discharge field (generated by ionizer 20 of Pradler) such that the particles therein are ionized (Pradler Fig. 1, [0073]), and
the particle filter (3 of Pradler) is polarized by the ionizer (20 of Pradler) when an electric field is generated by the ionizer for polarizing the particle filter (Pradler discloses its third electrode 26 inside mechanical filter module 3, together with second electrodes 24 of ionizer 20, forming a second electrical stage 23, Pradler Fig. 1, [0068]).
Regarding claim 6:
Pradler discloses a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system (HVAC system) for a motor vehicle (Pradler’s air purification system 100, Pradler Fig. 7, [0085]), comprising
an ionizer (Pradler’s first electric filter stage 121, Pradler Fig. 7, [0095]) configured to generate a corona discharge field (Pradler discloses its first electrode 122 is provided with needle extensions, Pradler Fig. 7, [0096], needle extensions generates corona discharge), which contains at least one polarized discharge electrode (122 of Pradler) and at least one counter electrode (Pradler’s second electrodes 124, Pradler Fig. 7, [0096]) with the opposite polarity of the discharge electrode (Pradler discloses its second electrode forming cathodes and first electrodes forming anodes, Pradler Fig. 7, [0096]),
a particle filter (Pradler’s mechanical filter module 103, Pradler Fig. 7, [0095]) configured to remove particles from an air flow (Pradler’s mechanical filter module 103 iincludes HEPA filter, which is capable of removing particles from air flow, Pradler Fig. 7, [0090]), and
a flow path (indicated by letter V in Prader Fig. 7) that defines a flow direction for air leading to a vehicle interior, the flow path is configured to conduct the air through the ionizer (121 of Pradler) and the particle filter (103 of Pradler),
wherein the ionizer (121 of Pradler) is upstream of the particle filter (103 of Pradler) in the flow path (as shown in Pradler Fig. 7),
wherein the discharge electrodes have numerous needles (Pradler discloses its electrodes 122 provided with needle extension), which point in the flow direction of the air, or against the flow direction of the air (as shown in Pradler’s alternative embodiment of Fig. 4, [0074]), and
the discharge electrodes (122 of Pradler) and dedicated counter electrodes (124 of Pradler) are spaced apart from one another in a direction transverse to the flow direction (as shown in Pradler’s alternative embodiment of Fig. 4, [0074]).
Regarding claim 7:
Pradler discloses that the HVAC system according to claim 6, wherein
the discharge electrodes (122 of Pradler) have numerous upstream needles (as shown in Pradler’s alternative embodiment of Fig. 4, [0074]), which point away from the particle filter (see Pradler Fig. 4 and Fig. 7), such that the tips of these upstream needles face away from the particle filter (see Pradler Fig. 4 and Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 8:
Pradler discloses that the HVAC system according to claim 6, wherein
the discharge electrodes have numerous downstream needles that point toward the particle filter, such that the tips of the downstream needles face toward the particle filter (see Pradler Fig. 4 and Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 9:
Pradler discloses that the HVAC system according to claim 6, wherein
the counter electrodes form flat plates, in particular flat plates, which are parallel to the discharge electrodes (as shown in Pradler’s alternative embodiment of Fig. 5, counter electrodes 24 are plate shaped and are parallel to discharge electrodes 22, Pradler Fig. 5), and/or
the discharge electrode and the dedicated counter electrodes extend in a straight line.
Regarding claim 11:
Pradler discloses that the HVAC system according to claim 6, wherein
the HVAC system has a control unit (Pradler discloses a control device, Pradler [0034]) with which the air filtering process is configured to be executed.
Regarding claim 14:
Pradler discloses that the HVAC system according to claim 6, wherein
the conductive layer in the particle filter forms an adsorption filtering layer, which comprises or contains activated carbon particles (Pradler discloses its particle filter 103 comprising activated carbon layers, Pradler [0032], activated carbon is conductive and adsorptive, and therefore is a conductive and adsorption filtering layer), or
the conductive layer in the particle filter is a grid structure, which comprises or contains or is composed of conductive wires, fibers, or filaments.
Regarding claim 17:
Pradler discloses that the HVAC system according to claim 6, wherein
the upstream needles on the upstream side of the needle substrate are at a predefined spacing to one another (Pradler discloses in its alternative embodiment of Fig. 4, wherein its upstream needles 28’ on the upstream side of the needle substrate 22’ are at a predefined spacing to one another, Pradler Fig. 4, [0074]), and/or
the downstream needles on the downstream side of the needle substrate are at a predefined spacing to one another (see Pradler Fig. 4), and/or
the spacing between the upstream needles is the same as the spacing between the downstream needles (see Pradler Fig. 4), and/or
the at least one downstream needle is substantially in the middle, between two adjacent upstream needles.
Regarding claim 18:
Pradler discloses that the HVAC system according to claim 9, wherein the discharge electrode and the dedicated counter elect extend transverse to the flow direction for the air (Pradler discloses in an alternative embodiment of Fig. 5, wherein discharge electrode 22 and counter electrodes 24 extend transverse to the flow direction for the air V, Pradler Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 19:
Pradler discloses that the HVAC system of claim 11, wherein the air filtering process comprises:
air flow polluted with particles (V of Pradler) first flows through the ionizer (121 of Pradler) and then through the particle filter with multiple layers (103 o Pradler, which could have multiple layers, Pradler Fig. 7, [0032])
the ionizer (121 of Pradler) generating a corona discharge field with at least one polarized discharge electrode and at least one counter electrode that has the opposite polarization of the discharge electrode (Pradler discloses first electrodes 122 and second electrodes 124, which forming anodes and cathodes respectively, Pradler Fig. 7 [0096], Pradler also discloses its electrode has needle extension, Pradler Fig. 7, [0096], indicating corona discharge filed are formed),
the air flow to be filtered passing through the corona discharge field (formed by ionizer 121), such that the particles therein are ionized (particles are charged in the ionizer 121, Pradler Fig. 7, [0073]), and
the particle filter (103 of Pradler) is polarized by the ionizer when an electric field is generated by the ionizer for polarizing the particle filter (Pradler Fig. 7, [0088].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 2, 15–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pradler in view of Jaisinghani et al., US 5,403,383 A (“Jaisinghani”).
Regarding claim 2:
Pradler discloses that the air filtering process according to claim 1,
the particle filter (3 of Pradler) comprises multiple layers (Pradler discloses its machinal filter module comprising at least one activated carbon, Pradler Fig. 1, [0032]), and at least one electrically conductive layer (activated carbon is electrically conductive),
the conductive layer in the particle filter is connected to a counter potential (Pradler’s third electrode is connected to Pradler’s particle filter 3 and therefore connected to Pradler’s activated carbon layer, Pradler Fig. 1, [0068]) that has the opposite polarity of the discharge electrode (24 of Pradler, Pradler discloses its third electrode 26 together with second electrode 24 forms electric field stage 23, Pradler Fig. 1, [0068]), in order to generate the electric field for polarizing the particle filter between the ionizer and the particle filter (Pradler discloses its third electrode 26 together with second electrode 24 forms electric field stage 23, Pradler Fig. 1, [0068]).
Pradler does not disclose the particle filter comprising at least one dielectric layer.
In the analogous art of air filter comprising ionizers, Jaisinghani discloses a filter 114, Jaisinghani Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 51–57. Jaisinghani discloses its filter 114 comprising a layer of dielectric material 116 and a layer of conductive material 118, wherein the conductive layer 118 is connected to a counter potential (Jaisinghani’s downstream ground electrode 106, Jaisinghani Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 51–66). Jaisinghani discloses its filter minimize the danger of sparks through the filter, Jaisinghani col. 3, ll. 5–9. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Pradler’s particle filter 3 to have the structure as disclosed by Jaisinghani for the benefits disclosed above.
Regarding claim 15:
Pradler does not disclose that the HVAC system according to claim 6, wherein the dielectric layer is placed on the conductive layer, and is therefore in contact therewith.
However, as discussed in claim 2, it would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Pradler’s particle filter 3 to have the structure as disclosed by Jaisinghani to minimize the danger of sparks. With such modification, modified Pradler would have a dielectric layer on the conductive layer and in contact therewith as shown in Jaisinghani Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 16:
Pradler does not disclose that the HVAC system according to claim 6, wherein the dielectric layer is upstream of the conductive layer in the particle filter.
However, as discussed in claim 2, it would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Pradler’s particle filter 3 to have the structure as disclosed by Jaisinghani to minimize the danger of sparks. With such modification, modified Pradler would have a dielectric layer upstream of the conductive layer as shown in Jaisinghani Fig. 1.
Claims 3–4, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pradler in view of Jaisinghani as applied to claim 2, and in further view of Jo et al., KR 102550473 B1 (“Jo”)1.
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Pradler does not disclose that the air filtering process according to claim 2, wherein
the conductive layer connected to the counter-potential until the polarization of the particle filter reaches a predetermined polarization threshold, or a predetermined polarization time has elapsed,
when the predetermined polarization threshold has been reached, or the polarization time has elapsed, the conductive layer of the particle filter is disconnected from the counter-potential.
In the analogous art of air purification devices comprising ionizers, Jo discloses a conductive layer 111 of a multiple layer particle filter 111, 112 is connected to a counter-potential (Jo’s power supply unit 210, Jo Fig. 10(a), p. 11). Jo discloses its power supply unit 210 is connected to a timer 250 configured to measure a time when power is supplied or cut off to the power supply unit 210 by a power supply control unit 240, Jo Fig. 10, p. 11. Jo discloses its device provide an electric precipitator that can form an internal electric field while minimizing the use of an external power source and efficiently collect dust by concentration of the internal electric field, Jo, p. 1. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Jo’s design in modified Pradler for the benefits disclosed.
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Pradler discloses that the air filtering process according to claim 3, wherein
the conductive layer is disconnected from the counter-potential until the polarization of the particle filter reaches a predetermined depolarization threshold, or a predetermined depolarization time has elapsed (the same way as Jo’s conductive layer 111 disconnected from the potential 210 when the power supply is cut off by power supply control unit 240, Jo FIG. 10(b), p. 11),
the conductive layer in the particle filter is reconnected to the counter-potential when the predetermined depolarization threshold has been reached, or the depolarization time has elapsed (Jo discloses its timer 250 measure a time where the power supply is cut off or supplied, which means Jo’s conductive layer 111 would be reconnected to its counter-potential 210, Jo Fig. 10, p. 11).
Regarding claim 10:
Pradler does not disclose that the HVAC system according to claim 6, wherein
the electrical connection can be switched on and off, such that the conductive layer can be connected to and disconnected from the counter-potential.
However, as discussed in claim 2, it would have been obvious to include Jaisinghani’s design, which includes a conductive layer connected to a counter-potential in Pradler for the benefits of minimize the danger of sparks. Also, as discussed in claim 3, It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Jo’s design of switching on/off for the benefits of providing an electric precipitator that can form an internal electric field while minimizing the use of an external power source and efficiently collect dust by concentration of the internal electric field. With the proposed modification in claims 2 and 3, modified Pradler’s electrical connection could be switched on and off, and enabling the conductive layer can be connected to and disconnected from the counter-potential.
Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pradler in view of Toyoda et al., US 2009/0007781 A1 (“Toyoda”)
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Pradler discloses that the air filtering process according to claim 1, wherein
the discharge electrode has a negative polarity, while the counter electrode and the counter-potential have a positive polarity, or
the discharge electrode has a positive polarity, while the counter electrode (Pradler discloses its discharge electrode 24 is cathodes and thus with a positive polarity and counter electrode 22 is anodes and thus a negative polarity, Pradler [0066]), and/or
the counter electrode is electrically connected to the counter-potential, and the conductive layer in the particle filter is connected to the counter electrode, in order to connect the conductive layer to the counter-potential.
Pradler does not disclose that its counter-potential 26 have a negative polarity.
Pradler discloses its counter-potential 26 is connected to electrical ground, Pradler [0072].
In the analogous art of air cleaner comprising corona charges, Toyoda discloses negative polarity is the ground (earth), Toyoda [0154]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to understand that a electrical ground could be treated as negative polarity as disclosed by Toyoda. And therefore, Pradler reads on the claim.
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pradler in view of Jaisinghani and in further view of Toyoda.
Regarding claim 12:
Pradler discloses that the HVAC system according to claim 6, wherein the particle filter (103 of Pradler) has numerous layers (Pradler discloses its mechanical filter element has at least one activated carbon layer, indicating it could have numerous layers, Pradler [0032]).
Pradler does not disclose that the particle filter contains at least one dielectric layer and at least one conductive layer, the HVAC system has an electrical connection for connecting a counter-potential to the conductive layer, which has the opposite polarity of the discharge electrode.
In the analogous art of air filter comprising ionizers, Jaisinghani discloses a filter 114, Jaisinghani Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 51–57. Jaisinghani discloses its filter 114 comprising a layer of dielectric material 116 and a layer of conductive material 118, wherein the conductive layer 118 is connected to a counter potential (Jaisinghani’s downstream ground electrode 106, Jaisinghani Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 51–66). Jaisinghani discloses its filter minimize the danger of sparks through the filter, Jaisinghani col. 3, ll. 5–9. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Pradler’s particle filter 3 to have the structure as disclosed by Jaisinghani for the benefits disclosed in claim 2. Additionally, Pradler discloses its discharge electrode 122 has a positive charge, Pradler Fig. 7, [0072]. Pradler discloses its third electrode 26 is grounded, Pradler Fig. 7, [0072]. On the other hand, Jaisinghani discloses its conductive layer is also grounded, Jaisinghani Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 38–50. Toyoda discloses negative polarity is the ground (earth), Toyoda [0154]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to understand that modified counter-potential to the conductive layer has opposite polarity of the discharge electrode.
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pradler in view of Wu et al., US 2013/0108831 A1 (“Wu”).
Regarding claim 13:
Pradler does not disclose that the HVAC system according to claim 6, wherein
the dielectric layer in the particle filter is a particle filtering layer, which comprises or contains or is made of a nonwoven sheet.
In the analogous art of air filters, Wu discloses an air laid nonwoven electric filter web 234 used as particulate filters, Wu Fig. 1, [0077]. Wu discloses its electric filter web 234 is a nonwoven sheet, Wu Figs. 1 and 3, [0077]. Wu discloses its filter more effectively retain the particulates within the fiber nonwoven electret fibrous web without adversely decreasing the chemically active surface area of the particulates by occlusion with a binder material, thereby preventing release of particulates into the permeating fluid when used as fluid filtration articles, while facilitating interaction of the entire chemically active surface area with the permeating fluid, resulting in improved service life and greater filtration effectiveness, Wu [0011]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for to modify Pradler’s particle filter to comprise or contain Wu’s nonwoven sheet for the benefits disclosed above.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1–2, 6, 12 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 and 6 of copending Application No. 18/770,911. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. 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.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 Jo’s original document and machine translation is the 43-page FOR dated Jul. 15, 2024. The examiner relies on the original document for the figure and machine translation for the figure. A copy of Jo’s machine translation is provided with the office action because the copy provided in the FOR is not legible.
Prosecution Insights