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 Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 112
Claim 11-17 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 limitation “means” coupled with functional language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
"means for absorbing heat from a processing device" and "means for generating airflow" (claim 11); "means for maintaining noise levels below a predetermined threshold" (claim 14); "means for selectively activating a centrifugal blower" (claim 16); and "means for selectively operating the ionic air-moving device and the centrifugal blower based on cooling demands" (claim 17)
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 18, each recites "to direct heat from the processing device computing out of the computing device housing." The phrase "the processing device computing" is not grammatically complete, and it is unclear what is intended by "computing" in this position. For purposes of examination, the phrase is interpreted as "to direct heat from the processing device out of the computing device housing." Claims 2-10, 12-17, 19, and 20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from an indefinite base claim.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation "means for maintaining noise levels below a predetermined threshold during operation of the ionic air-moving device" invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The specification does not appear to disclose corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function of maintaining noise levels below a predetermined threshold, nor an algorithm by which any disclosed structure performs that function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Applicant may: (a) amend the claim so that it clearly does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f); (b) amend the claim to recite the corresponding structure; or (c) identify, with specific citation, where the specification describes the corresponding structure. For purposes of examination, the means of claim 14 is understood to be the ionic air-moving device itself, which operates silently by its nature.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 102
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.
Claims 1, 4, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schlitz (US 2006/0169441 A1).Regarding claim 1, Schlitz discloses a cooling system for a computing device (mobile computer application in fig. 13), comprising: a computing device housing (laptop computer enclosure having side wall with vent 1308 in fig. 13); a heat dissipation structure within the computing device housing (EHD gas flow heat sink 1306 in fig. 13, comprising channel 110 defined by fins 114-A, 114-B in fig. 1), the heat dissipation structure configured to absorb heat from a processing device (heat sink 1306 receives heat from central processing unit 1304 via heat pipe 1302 in fig. 13); and an ionic air-moving device (first electrode 102 and second electrode 104 separated by gap 106, with voltage source 108, in fig. 1; alternating current power supply 1310 in fig. 13) configured to generate airflow across the heat dissipation structure to direct heat from the processing device out of the computing device housing (ion generation across gap 106 imparts momentum to the gas, causing flow through channel 110 in direction 112 in fig. 1; heat sink 1306 is located near the side wall vent 1308 so that hot gas is exhausted outside of the computer, fig. 13).Regarding claim 4, Schlitz discloses wherein the ionic air-moving device is configured to maintain noise levels below a predetermined threshold during operation (the cooling system can operate silently, abstract; the EHD pumping mechanism moves gas by ion generation without moving mechanical parts, such that the system provides similar or better performance than a conventional heat sink and fan system while operating silently). A device that operates silently necessarily maintains its noise level below a predetermined threshold. It is further noted that the claim recites the capability of the device rather than any structure that distinguishes over the prior art; the broadest reasonable interpretation of "a predetermined threshold" encompasses any noise level selected in advance, and Schlitz's silent EHD air mover possesses the recited capability. See MPEP 2114.Regarding claim 11, Schlitz discloses an apparatus comprising: means for absorbing heat from a processing device at a heat dissipation structure (EHD gas flow heat sink 1306 in fig. 13, comprising channel 110 defined by fins 114-A, 114-B in fig. 1, receiving heat from central processing unit 1304 via heat pipe 1302 in fig. 13), the processing device and heat dissipation structure disposed within a computing device housing (central processing unit 1304 and heat sink 1306 within the laptop computer enclosure in fig. 13); and means for generating airflow at an ionic air-moving device (first electrode 102 and second electrode 104 separated by gap 106, with voltage source 108, in fig. 1; alternating current power supply 1310 in fig. 13), the airflow directed through an airflow path and across the heat dissipation structure (flow through channel 110 in direction 112 from channel inlet to outlet, fig. 1) to direct heat from the processing device out of the computing device housing (heat sink 1306 located near the side wall vent 1308 so that hot gas is exhausted outside of the computer, fig. 13).Regarding claim 14, as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Schlitz discloses means for maintaining noise levels below a predetermined threshold during operation of the ionic air-moving device (the EHD air mover operates silently, abstract; see the rejection of claim 4 above).
Claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Schlitz (US 2006/0169441 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Schlitz.
Regarding claim 2, Schlitz discloses wherein the ionic air-moving device includes an alternating current (AC) ionic air-moving device (voltage source 1210 applies a temporally controlled potential, para. [0067]; the alternating bus potential is not limited to sinusoidal but can be square or pulsed, and variations thereof, para. [0062]; power supply 1310 provides alternating current to drive the EHD gas flow unit, fig. 13), the AC ionic air-moving device including: an exposed electrode in direct contact with air (first electrode 1202 in figs. 12A-12B, para. [0066], disposed in the gas gap of the cooling channel); and an embedded electrode separated from air by a dielectric material (third electrode 1206, an aluminum conductor having a thickness of about 500 nm, covered by a thin dielectric 1208 of, for example, polyimide having a thickness of about 1 micron; figs. 12A-12B, paras. [0066]-[0067]). In the alternative, to the extent the temporally controlled voltage source 1210 of the figs. 12A-12B embodiment is construed as other than an alternating current, Schlitz expressly teaches operating its EHD electrode arrangements with an alternating (AC) bus potential, the shape of which may be square or pulsed, at an optimal frequency of 1-100 kHz, to prevent surface charge from building up on dielectric surfaces and retarding the electric field at the first electrodes (paras. [0061]-[0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to drive the electrode arrangement of figs. 12A-12B with the alternating potential taught by Schlitz, because Schlitz identifies charge accumulation on dielectric surfaces under DC operation as the problem solved by AC drive (para. [0061]), and the figs. 12A-12B embodiment includes exactly such a dielectric surface (1208), such that AC operation yields the predictable benefit of sustained ion formation and pumping performance taught by Schlitz itself (para. [0062]).
Regarding claim 3, Schlitz discloses wherein the ionic air-moving device is configured to: receive AC current (voltage source 1210, temporally controlled, para. [0067]; alternating bus potential, which can be square or pulsed, para. [0062]; see the rejection of claim 2 above); and generate an electric field to ionize air molecules near the exposed electrode and move ionized air particles toward the embedded electrode (voltage source 1210 causes the gas gap between electrodes 1202, 1206 to begin to break down, such that ions are formed at the channel inlet 1212 and charge accumulates on the surface of the dielectric 1208 covering the electrode 1206, para. [0067] - i.e., ionization occurs in the gap at the exposed first electrode 1202, and the ionized particles are drawn toward and accumulate on the dielectric-covered third electrode 1206). The alternative ground set forth in the rejection of claim 2 with respect to the alternating current limitation applies equally to claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, Schlitz discloses wherein the ionic air-moving device includes an alternating current (AC) ionic air-moving device including an exposed electrode in direct contact with air and an embedded electrode separated from air by a dielectric material, for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2 above, the ionic air-moving device being the structure corresponding to the means for generating airflow of claim 11.Regarding claim 13, Schlitz discloses wherein the ionic air-moving device is configured to receive an AC current and generate an electric field to ionize air molecules near the exposed electrode and move ionized air particles toward the embedded electrode, for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlitz (US 2006/0169441 A1) in view of June et al. (US 2011/0292593 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Schlitz does not disclose that the ionic air-moving device includes a plurality of low-pressure blowers. June teaches a plurality of ionic air-moving devices within a computer chassis (chassis 12 having fluidically parallel airflow zones 40, 41, 42, each zone provided with an ionic air moving device comprising an ion emitter electrode disposed a spaced distance from a collector electrode, fig. 1; abstract), wherein a controller (44) independently controls the electrical potential (via voltage sources 36) of each ionic air moving device to affect the rate of airflow through one or more of the airflow zones (abstract; temperature sensors 46, 47, 48 in the respective zones, fig. 1). June's ionic air movers are low-pressure devices operating to adjust airflow within a primary flow established by a nonionic air moving device (fan 16, fig. 1; see also fig. 3, showing static pressures on the order of hundredths of an inch of water). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ionic air-moving arrangement of Schlitz as a plurality of independently operable ionic air-moving devices as taught by June, because June teaches that a plurality of ionic air movers deployed across parallel zones of a computer chassis permits independent, zone-by-zone control of airflow to individual heat-generating devices in response to sensed temperature, and Schlitz itself contemplates pluralities of EHD pumps serving pluralities of heat sink channels, such that the combination applies a known zonal-control technique to a known EHD cooling system with the predictable result of distributed, demand-responsive airflow within the computing device housing.Regarding claim 6, June further teaches that the plurality of ionic air-moving devices are arranged in a modular configuration (each of airflow zones 40, 41, 42 is provided with its own independently operable ionic air moving device unit comprising emitter electrodes 50 and an associated voltage source 36 and temperature sensor 46, 47, 48, fig. 1; fig. 5 shows repeating ionic air mover modules 93, 94, 95, each module comprising an emitter electrode array 97 and a collector 98, arranged under common control of controller 100). The rationale for combining Schlitz and June set forth in the rejection of claim 5 applies equally here: June's per-zone, repeating-unit arrangement is the mechanism by which the plurality of ionic air movers delivers independent zonal airflow control, and applying that arrangement to Schlitz's EHD cooling system yields the predictable result of a modular, zone-serviceable ionic cooling arrangement.Regarding claim 7, the claim recites that the modular configuration includes multiple blower modules arranged in a series configuration, a parallel configuration, or a combination of series and parallel configuration; the claim is met by a teaching of any one of the recited alternatives. June teaches multiple ionic air mover modules arranged in a parallel configuration (the ionic air moving devices of the respective airflow zones 40, 41, 42 each extend across one of a plurality of fluidically parallel airflow zones of the computer chassis, abstract and fig. 1; the modules 93, 94, 95 of fig. 5 are likewise arranged side-by-side across parallel portions of the airflow such that each module moves air through its own zone in parallel with the others). The rationale for combining Schlitz and June set forth in the rejection of claim 5 applies equally here, the parallel arrangement being the very mechanism by which June achieves independent zonal airflow control.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlitz (US 2006/0169441 A1) in view of Jewell-Larsen et al. (US 2011/0292560 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Schlitz does not disclose further including a thin-film air-moving device. Jewell-Larsen teaches a thin-film air-moving device (EHD air mover 110 in figs. 1A-1C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include the thin-film air-moving device of Jewell-Larsen in the cooling system of Schlitz, because Schlitz expressly contemplates combining its EHD air mover with other flow-generating mechanisms, and Jewell-Larsen teaches that forming an air mover as thin electrode structures on or between existing components permits airflow generation within the confined air gaps of thin electronic devices, yielding the predictable result of supplemental, localized cooling airflow without enlarging the device form factor.
Regarding claim 15, Schlitz does not disclose that the ionic air-moving device includes a thin-film ionic air-moving device. Jewell-Larsen teaches a thin-film ionic air-moving device (EHD air mover 110 in figs. 1A-1C; EHD air mover 310 comprising thin electrode structures 391, 392, 393 in the air gap adjacent CPU/GPU 362, fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the ionic air-moving device of Schlitz to include a thin-film ionic air-moving device as taught by Jewell-Larsen, because Jewell-Larsen teaches that thin-form EHD air movers permit deployment within the confined air gaps of thin, low-profile electronic devices, yielding the predictable result of ionic cooling airflow within a reduced device form factor.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlitz (US 2006/0169441 A1) in view of North (US 2019/0239384 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Schlitz does not disclose further including a centrifugal blower. North teaches a centrifugal blower in a computing device (cooling fan 110, e.g., an 80 mm x 80 mm x 8 mm centrifugal blower, circulating cooling air through chassis enclosure 105, para. [0035]; figs. 2A-2B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include a centrifugal blower in the cooling system of Schlitz, as taught by North, because Schlitz expressly teaches combining its EHD air mover with conventional mechanisms such as fans, and North teaches a compact centrifugal blower as a conventional means of circulating cooling air through a computing device chassis, yielding the predictable result of increased total airflow capacity supplementing the ionic air mover.Regarding claim 16, Schlitz does not disclose means for selectively activating a centrifugal blower. North teaches a centrifugal blower in a computing device (cooling fan 110, e.g., an 80 mm x 80 mm x 8 mm centrifugal blower, circulating cooling air through chassis enclosure 105, para. [0035]; figs. 2A-2B) and control structure for selectively activating it (power supply/control 173 coupled to fan 110 and to controller circuitry 177 within chassis 105, figs. 2A-2B, operating the fan in forward and reverse airflow modes per figs. 2A and 2B respectively) (para. 0038). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include means for selectively activating a centrifugal blower in the cooling system of Schlitz, as taught by North, because Schlitz expressly teaches combining its EHD air mover with conventional fans, and North teaches controlled activation of a chassis blower to move cooling air when and as needed, yielding the predictable result of a supplemental air mover energized on demand rather than continuously.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlitz (US 2006/0169441 A1) in view of North (US 2019/0239384 A1) and June et al. (US 2011/0292593 A1).Regarding claim 10, Schlitz in view of North teaches the cooling system of claim 9 as set forth above, but does not disclose that the ionic air-moving device and the centrifugal blower are operated selectively based on cooling demands. June teaches selectively operating ionic air-moving devices together with a nonionic air-moving device based on cooling demands (controller 44 independently controls the electrical potential applied via voltage sources 36 to the ionic air moving device of each airflow zone 40, 41, 42 in response to temperature signals from sensors 46, 47, 48 in the respective zones, fig. 1; the ionic devices enhance or reduce airflow through the zones within the airflow established by nonionic air moving device 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the ionic air-moving device and centrifugal blower of Schlitz in view of North selectively based on cooling demands, as taught by June, because June teaches that temperature-responsive, independent control of ionic air movers operating alongside a nonionic air mover directs cooling airflow where and when it is needed, yielding the predictable result of demand-matched cooling with reduced power and noise when full airflow is not required.Regarding claim 17, Schlitz in view of North teaches the apparatus of claim 16 as set forth above, but does not disclose means for selectively operating the ionic air-moving device and the centrifugal blower based on cooling demands. June teaches a controller selectively operating ionic air-moving devices together with a nonionic air-moving device based on cooling demands (controller 44 independently controls the electrical potential applied via voltage sources 36 to the ionic air moving device of each airflow zone 40, 41, 42 in response to temperature signals from sensors 46, 47, 48 in the respective zones, fig. 1; the ionic devices enhance or reduce airflow within the airflow established by nonionic air moving device 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Schlitz in view of North with a controller selectively operating the ionic air-moving device and the centrifugal blower based on cooling demands, as taught by June, because June teaches that temperature-responsive control of ionic air movers operating alongside a nonionic air mover directs cooling airflow where and when it is needed, yielding the predictable result of demand-matched cooling with reduced power and noise when full airflow is not required.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerlach (US 2011/0024092 A1) in view of Schlitz (US 2006/0169441 A1).Regarding claim 18, Gerlach discloses an air mover for cooling electronic devices, comprising: a heat dissipation structure (heat sink body 14 having elongated channels 16 extending between respective channel inlets 18 and outlets, figs. 1-2), the heat dissipation structure configured to absorb heat from a heat producing device (heat sink body 14 distributes waste heat from heat producing devices, such as electronic devices, to the ambient surroundings); a flexible membrane air-moving device (synthetic jet actuator module 22 adjacent heat sink body 14, fig. 1, including housing 30 defining internal volume 32, one wall of housing 30 comprising diaphragm 34 moveable along direction 36 to change the internal volume, fig. 2); and an actuator configured to oscillate the flexible membrane air-moving device to generate airflow across the heat dissipation structure (an actuator, such as a piezoelectric element or electromagnetic actuator, associated with diaphragm 34 to control the movement; movement of diaphragm 34 emits vortices 26 through jet outlets 24 into channels 16 to remove heat from heat sink body 14, fig. 2). Gerlach does not disclose a computing device housing, or that the heat producing device is a processing device within the computing device housing such that heat is directed out of the computing device housing. Schlitz teaches a cooling arrangement in which a heat dissipation structure (heat sink 1306) and a processing device (central processing unit 1304) are disposed within a computing device housing (laptop computer enclosure, fig. 13), with an air-moving device generating airflow across the heat dissipation structure such that hot gas is exhausted outside of the computer through a vent (1308) in a side wall of the housing, providing compact, quiet cooling of a processor in a space-constrained mobile computer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Gerlach's synthetic jet cooling device within a computing device housing to cool a processing device and exhaust heat out of the housing, as taught by Schlitz, because Gerlach's stated purpose is cooling heat-producing electronic devices while reducing cooling device size, and Schlitz demonstrates the conventional arrangement of a heat sink and air mover positioned at a vented housing wall to carry processor heat out of a computing device, yielding the predictable result of a quiet, compact processor cooling system.Regarding claim 19, Gerlach further teaches that the actuator associated with diaphragm 34 may be an electromagnetic actuator (an actuator, such as a piezoelectric element, electromagnetic actuator, or the like, associated with the diaphragm 34 to control the movement). An electromagnetic actuator operates by the interaction of a magnetic field with a current-carrying element; accordingly, Gerlach's electromagnetic actuator embodiment comprises an electromagnetic field source generating a field to interact with the actuator, in the manner of a conventional voice-coil driver in which a magnet provides the field within which the driven coil moves. To the extent Gerlach's naming of an "electromagnetic actuator" is not regarded as necessarily including the recited field source, it would nonetheless have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Gerlach's electromagnetic actuator as a conventional voice-coil arrangement comprising a field-generating magnet interacting with a coil coupled to diaphragm 34, because Gerlach expressly identifies the electromagnetic actuator as one of two suitable driver types for the diaphragm, and the magnet-and-coil arrangement was the art-recognized implementation of electromagnetic diaphragm drive - as the instant specification itself acknowledges (para. [0031]: the movement of the coil and magnetic field is similar to the operation of a coil and magnetic field in a speaker) - yielding the predictable result of oscillating the diaphragm to generate the cooling airflow.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerlach (US 2011/0024092 A1) in view of Schlitz (US 2006/0169441 A1), further in view of Han et al. (US 2011/0316416 A1).Regarding claim 20, Gerlach in view of Schlitz teaches the air mover of claim 18 as set forth above, and Gerlach further teaches a plurality of air mover units (first and second synthetic jet actuator modules 322, 322' disposed at opposite ends of the channels, each emitting vortices via respective jets 326, 326' into the shared channels, fig. 5). Gerlach in view of Schlitz does not disclose an active noise cancellation system configured to phase-shift control signals between air mover units. Han teaches an active noise cancellation system configured to phase-shift control signals between air mover units (apparatus including at least a set of a first synthetic jet and a second synthetic jet, the first and second synthetic jets responsive to respective actuating signals having a phase difference, e.g., 180 degrees, between one another chosen to reduce acoustic noise produced by the first and second synthetic jets when cooling the device, abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to drive the first and second synthetic jet modules (322, 322') of Gerlach with actuating signals phase-shifted between one another, as taught by Han, because Han teaches that imposing a phase difference between the actuating signals of paired synthetic jets reduces the acoustic noise the jets produce while cooling, and Gerlach's opposed-module arrangement provides exactly such a pair of jets serving common channels, yielding the predictable result of quieter synthetic jet cooling - a recognized objective of diaphragm-type air movers over rotary fans.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2025/0328174 – hyperbaric thermal architecture for an information handling system.
US 2024/0134349 – system and method for environmental condition management
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENGFU J FENG whose telephone number is (571) 272-2949. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 900am-530pm EST.
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, JAYPRAKASH GANDHI can be reached at (571) 272-3740. 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.
/ZHENGFU J FENG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835 July 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights