DETAILED ACTION
Claims Subject to Examination
Patent claims 1-10 are subject to examination.
Patent Sought to be Reissued
This reissue application seeks to correct US Patent No. 11,506,152 B2, which issued from Application No. 17/472,514.
First Error in Prosecution History – Now Corrected
The Application Data Sheet (ADS) filed in Application No. 17/472,514 on September 10, 2021 stated a foreign priority claim under 35 USC 119(b) to Application No. 2020211970520.2 filed in China on September 10, 2020.
As explained in the petition and request for certificate of correction filed in US Patent No. 11,506,152 B2 (Application No. 17/472,514) on October 14, 2025, applicant failed to perfect the foreign priority claim in a timely fashion by providing the USPTO with the access code for use in electronic retrieval of a certified copy of the foreign priority document.
The USPTO retrieved the missing certified copy of the foreign priority document on November 7, 2024.
After being notified of the dismissal of the original petition, applicant filed a renewed petition on January 14, 2025.
The renewed petition was granted by Decision on Petition mailed on February 18, 2025.
A Certificate of Correction was issued on March 25, 2025 adding the foreign priority data to the front page of the patent.
Thus, applicant’s foreign priority claim has been perfected. No further correction of the foreign priority claim is required via this reissue application.
Second Error in Prosecution History – Correction Pending
The ADS filed in Application No. 17/472,514 on September 10, 2021 identified the name of the first applicant as “MAHLE Automative Technologies (China) Co. Ltd.” (emphasis added).
As explained in the petition and request for certificate of correction filed in US Patent No. 11,506,152 B2 (Application No. 17/472,514) on October 27, 2025:
A typographical error was made in the ADS filed in Application No. 17/472,514.
As a result of the error in the ADS, the patent inaccurately identifies the first applicant as “MAHLE Automative Technologies (China) Co. Ltd.” (emphasis added). The name of the first applicant should be corrected to read “MAHLE Automotive Technologies (China) Co. Ltd.” (emphasis added).
Applicant filed corrective assignment documents on August 22, 2025 changing the name of the first assignee from “MAHLE Automative Technologies (China) Co. Ltd.” to “MAHLE Automotive Technologies (China) Co. Ltd.” (emphasis added).
The USPTO has not yet answered the petition and request for certificate of correction filed on October 27, 2025. Thus, correction of the first applicant’s name is pending the USPTO’s approval and subsequent issuance of a Certificate of Correction in US Patent No. 11,506,152 B2.
The ADS filed in the instant reissue application on November 22, 2024 inaccurately identified the name of the first applicant as “MAHLE Automative Technologies (China) Co. Ltd.” (emphasis added). The corrected ADS filed in this application on February 14, 2025 corrects the name of the first applicant to read “MAHLE Automotive Technologies (China) Co. Ltd.” (emphasis added). The corrected ADS was accompanied by a request for a corrected filing receipt, which will be addressed by the appropriate USPTO personnel in due course. Thus, correction of the first applicant’s name is pending the USPTO’s approval.
Consent of Assignees
This reissue application is objected to under 37 CFR 1.172(a) as lacking proper written consents of all assignees owning an undivided interest in the patent for which reissue is sought. The consents of the assignees must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.172. See MPEP 1410.02.
The Form PTO/AIA /53 (Reissue Application: Consent of Assignee) filed on February 14, 2025, and naming the assignee MAHLE Automotive Technologies (China) Co. Ltd., is defective because:
It fails to accurately identify the “Name of Patentee(s)”. US Patent No. 11,506,152 B2 identifies both MAHLE Automotive Technologies (China) Co. Ltd.1 and MAHLE International GmbH as applicants. Thus, both of these applicants should be identified as the “Name of Patentee(s)”.
The person who signed the form has failed to state in what capacity the submission on behalf of the organization was signed, and the person who signed it has not been established as being authorized to act on behalf of the assignee. Note the form field where the signer’s name and title are to be supplied has been left blank. See MPEP 325, subsection V, for an explanation of who may sign on behalf of the assignee.
The Form PTO/AIA /53 (Reissue Application: Consent of Assignee) filed on February 3, 2025, and naming the assignee MAHLE International GmbH, is defective because:
It fails to accurately identify the “Name of Patentee(s)”. US Patent No. 11,506,152 B2 identifies both MAHLE Automotive Technologies (China) Co. Ltd. and MAHLE International GmbH as applicants. Thus, both of these applicants should be identified as the “Name of Patentee(s)”.
The persons who signed the form are not recognized as officers of the assignee and have not been established as being authorized to act on behalf of the assignee. One of the signers identifies their title as “Head of IP Dept” and the other signer identifies their title as “Patent Professional”. Persons with these titles are not recognized as having apparent authority to sign on behalf of the organization. See MPEP 325, subsection V.
Proper consents of the assignees in compliance with 37 CFR 1.172 and 3.73 are required in reply to this Office action.
Establishing Ownership
This reissue application is objected to under 37 CFR 1.172(a) because the assignees have not properly established their ownership interest in the patent for which reissue is sought. An assignee must establish its ownership interest in order to support the consent to a reissue application required by 37 CFR 1.172(a).
No statement identifying the ownership interest of the first assignee, MAHLE Automotive Technologies (China) Co. Ltd., has been filed in this reissue application.2
The Form PTO/AIA /96 (Statement under 37 CFR 3.73(c)) filed on February 3, 2025, and naming the assignee MAHLE International GmbH, is defective because:
It states inaccurately that the second assignee MAHLE International GmbH is “The assignee of the entire right, title, and interest.” The ADS filed in this reissue application on November 22, 2024 identifies two assignees. Further, the assignment documents filed on October 25, 2022 and August 22, 2025 state that the first assignee MAHLE Automotive Technologies (China) Co. Ltd. has assigned an unspecified percentage of the entire right, title, and interest to the second assignee MAHLE International GmbH. Since two assignees own respective portions of the entire right, title and interest, the second assignee cannot be “The assignee of the entire right, title, and interest.”
It fails to identify the complete and accurate chain of title from the inventors to the second assignee MAHLE International GmbH since the data has not been supplied for the corrective assignment documents on August 22, 2025, which correct the name of the first assignee MAHLE Automotive Technologies (China) Co. Ltd.
Proper submissions establishing both assignees’ ownership interests in the patent, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.172(a), are required in response to this action.
Reissue Oath/Declaration
The three separate reissue declarations filed on February 3, 2025 are defective because, at the bottom of page 2, the box has not been checked indicating that additional inventors are named on supplemental sheets. As a result, each declaration improperly identifies the respective inventor as a sole inventor rather than a joint inventor.
Each of the reissue declarations filed on February 3, 2025 is also defective because it fails to specifically identify at least one error which can be properly relied upon to support the reissue application, i.e., an error that can properly serve as the basis for reissue. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP 1414-1414.01.
In the present case, the error statement reads “The claim to foreign priority (CN Priority Application No. CN 2020211970520.2) was inadvertently and unintentionally not properly perfected in U.S. Patent No. 11,506,152.” As explained above, this statement is inaccurate because the foreign priority claim has been perfected in US Patent No. 11,506,152 B2. Thus, correction of the foreign priority claim cannot be relied upon as the basis for this reissue application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 251:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS.—The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.—The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS. No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
GROUND 1: Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon a defective reissue oath/declaration. See 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the defect(s) in the reissue oath/declaration is explained above.
GROUND 2: Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 because this reissue application fails to identify and correct an error in the patent for which reissue is sought. There must be at least one error in the patent to provide grounds for reissue of the patent. If there is no error in the patent, the patent will not be reissued. See MPEP 1402.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
GROUND 3: Claims 1-10 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.
Claim 1 requires “a Venturi tube” (l. 8), but only defines this “Venturi tube” as having an inlet segment, a throat, and a back suction tube. Claim 2 goes on to define the “Venturi tube” as having a diffusion segment. By definition, a “Venturi tube” (or a tube defining/including a “venturi”) must possess structure that narrows to a flow constriction and then widens again. Thus, to constitute a “Venturi tube”, the claimed structure must possess the inlet segment, the throat, and the diffusion segment. Since claim 1 does not require the diffusion segment (the portion that widens), the claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements.
Claim 1 recites “a Venturi tube…comprising an inlet segment, a throat and a back suction tube” (ll. 8-9). It is unclear how a first “tube” can comprise a second “tube” as only part of the structure of the first “tube”. Such a definition of the invention contradicts the ordinary meaning of the term “tube”.
Claim 1 recites “the back suction tube extends to the bottom of the cavity” (ll. 14-15). However, this recitation is contradicted by claim 10, which requires a gap between the end of the back suction tube and the platform portion at the bottom of the cavity. The back suction tube cannot extend “to” the bottom of the cavity if a gap is formed between the back suction tube and the bottom of the cavity.
In claim 1, the term “the bottom of the cavity” (l. 15) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 4 recites “an inner wall of the diffusion segment tapers into a truncated cone shape” (ll. 1-2). This definition of the invention is confusing and inaccurate. A structural wall can taper, and a structural wall can have a truncated cone shape. However, a structural wall cannot “taper into” a truncated cone shape.
Claim 5 recites “a limiting portion which is located at the inlet segment and the diffusion segment” (ll. 2-3). This definition of the invention is inaccurate. It is not possible, based on the written description, for a single “limiting portion” to be located at both the inlet segment and the diffusion segment. Rather, the specification describes one limiting portion formed in the inlet segment and another limiting portion formed in the diffusion segment.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the inlet segment and the diffusion segment are identical in structure after the Venturi tube is rotated 180 degrees about an axis of the back suction tube”. This definition of the invention is confusing and inaccurate. Rotation of the Venturi tube 180 degrees is not a condition of the claimed identical structure. That is, the symmetrical structure does not come into existence “after the Venturi tube is rotated 180 degrees…”
Claim 7 recites “an inner wall of the inlet segment tapers into a truncated cone shape” (ll. 1-2). This definition of the invention is confusing and inaccurate. See the explanation with respect to claim 4.
Claim 8 recites “an inner wall of the back suction tube tapers into a truncated cone shape” (ll. 1-2). This definition of the invention is confusing and inaccurate. See the explanation with respect to claim 4.
In claim 10, the term “the end of the back suction tube” (ll. 1-2) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the end of the back suction tube is provided with a convex portion”. This definition of the invention is confusing and inaccurate. A structure that is “convex” is, by definition, a structure with a curved surface. However, based on the illustration of the structural elements 35 in Fig. 4, the disclosed structure does not have a curved surface.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the end of the back suction tube is provided with a convex portion that extends toward a platform portion at the bottom of the cavity, so that a gap is formed between the end of the back suction tube and the platform portion.” This definition of the invention is confusing and inaccurate. If the end of the tube is provided with the claimed convex portion, then the provision of the convex portion on the end of the tube cannot result in or cause a gap to be formed between the end of the tube and the platform portion. Based on the illustration in Fig. 4, it would appear that notches or voids are formed between the structural elements 35 to form a gap or passage for the liquid fuel to flow.
Dependent claims are included in the rejection at least because of their dependencies.
Listing of Prior Art
The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference used for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Oh et al.”
US Publication No. 2004/0206240 A1
“Ikuma et al. ‘406”
JP Publication No. 2000-320406 A (with translation)
“Ikuma et al. ‘874”
US Publication No. 2002/0026874 A1
“Li”
CN Publication No. 107575321 A (with translation)
“Takahashi et al. ‘344”
US Patent No. 5,641,344
“Takahashi et al. ‘739”
JP Publication No. H09-88739 A (with translation)
“Yoshida et al.”
JP Publication No. 2006-125353 A (with translation)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
GROUND 4: Claims 1-4, 7, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshida et al.
With respect to claims 1 and 2, Yoshida et al. discloses a carbon canister, comprising:
A main body 12 formed with an activated carbon containing chamber 16 (16A) containing activated carbon 22. See Figs. 1-3; ¶¶ 0009, 0012.3
An end cover 34 mounted to the main body 12, wherein the end cover 34 and the main body 12 enclose and thus form a cavity 36, and the end cover 34 is provided with a desorption port 26 which is used for connecting with an intake passage 28 of an engine. See Figs. 1-3; ¶¶ 0009-0010, 0014, 0016.
A Venturi tube 42 mounted in the cavity 36 and comprising (i) an inlet segment (see Figs. 1-5) having an open end coupled to a wall 32 of the main body 12 and communicating with the chamber 16 (16A), (ii) a diffusion segment (see Figs. 1-5) having an open end coupled to the end cover 34 and communicating with the desorption port 26, (iii) a throat 44 connecting the inlet and diffusion segments and having an inner diameter smaller than the inner diameters of the inlet and diffusion segments, and (iv) a back suction tube 46 that connects to the throat and extends toward a bottom of the cavity 36. See Figs. 1-5; ¶¶ 0011, 0014, 0016.
With respect to claim 3, the inlet segment, throat and diffusion segment of the Venturi tube 42 extend in a straight line. See Figs. 1-5.
With respect to claims 4 and 7, inner walls of the inlet and diffusion segments of the Venturi tube 42 are tapered and have a truncated cone shape in a direction extending from their respective open ends toward the throat. See Figs. 1-4.
With respect to claim 8, an inner wall of the back suction tube 46 is tapered and has a truncated cone shape in a direction extending from a lower end thereof toward the throat. See Figs. 3-4.
With respect to claim 10, the lower end of the back suction tube 46 is formed with projections (see Fig. 4) that extend toward a platform portion (see Fig. 3) at the bottom of the cavity 36, and the projections are separated by notches/voids, so that a gap 48 is formed between the end of the back suction tube 46 and the platform portion. See Figs. 3-4; ¶ 0011.
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.
GROUND 5: Claims 5, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yoshida et al.
See GROUND 4 for a detailed discussion of Yoshida et al.
With respect to claim 5, Yoshida et al. discloses that a slit (limiting portion) 70 is located on the diffusion segment of the Venturi tube 42, and the slit 70 cooperates with a positioning rib 68 on the end cap 34 to prevent the Venturi tube 42 from rotating about an axis of the throat 44. See Figs. 3-5; ¶ 0015. Yoshida et al. fails to teach the provision of a second slit on the inlet segment cooperating with a second positioning rib on the main body. However, such a modification involving a mere duplication of parts is generally recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The skilled artisan would appreciate that duplicating the slit and positioning rib would result in more accurate positioning of the Venturi tube and more reliable prevention of its rotation.
With respect to claim 6, the Venturi tube 42 of Yoshida et al. has an essentially symmetrical construction about an axis of the back suction tube 46. See Figs. 3-4. Further, duplication of the slit and positioning rib (see explanation with respect to claim 5) would result in a symmetrical construction of the Venturi tube 42 such that its structure would be identical regardless of its rotation 180 degrees about the axis of the back suction tube 46.
With respect to claim 9, Yoshida et al. teaches that the inner wall of the back suction tube 46 tapers down to a small tapered orifice 46A connecting to the throat 44, with the orifice 46A functioning to atomize liquid fuel that is suctioned through the tube 46. See Figs. 2-5; ¶¶ 0011, 0016. Given the stated construction and purpose of the orifice 46A, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yoshida et al. by selecting a diameter for the orifice 46A of less than 1 mm so that the orifice will function well in atomizing the liquid fuel. Further, a mere change is size is generally recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Takahashi et al. ‘739 teaches a back suction tube 3b connecting to a throat 3c of a venturi tube 3a in order to suction liquid fuel from a bottom of a cavity defined by an end cover 2. See Figs. 1-4.
Ikuma et al. ‘406 teaches a back suction tube 23a connecting to a central portion of a tube 23b in order to suction liquid fuel from a bottom of a cavity defined by an end cover 20. See Figs. 7-12.
Li teaches a back suction tube 13 connecting to a portion of a desorption tube 3 in order to suction liquid fuel from a bottom of a cavity defined in part by an end cover 10. See Figs. 1-3.
Takahashi et al. ‘344 teaches a back suction tube 3a connecting to a throat portion S2 of a venturi-like passage 2d in order to suction liquid fuel from a bottom of a cavity defined by an end cover 2. See Figs. 1-4.
Ikuma et al. ‘874 teaches a back suction tube 7 connecting to a throat 4a of a venturi tube in order to suction liquid fuel from a bottom of a cavity defined by an end cover 5. See Fig. 14.
Oh et al. teaches back suction tubes 35 connecting to a central portion of a tube 32 in order to suction liquid fuel from a bottom of a cavity defined by an end cover 34. See Figs. 1-4.
Specification
The specification is objected to because:
In the abstract, at l. 5, “and engine” should read “an engine”.
In the abstract, the last sentence is merely a series of phrases. It does not constitute a grammatically correct sentence.
In col. 3, at l. 67, “can form as a” should read “can form a”.
In col. 4, at ll. 7-8, the description of the diffusion segment 33 as having “cylindrical shape” is inaccurate. Note this description is contradicted by the later description of the diffusion segment 33 as having an inner wall that tapers into a truncated cone shape (col. 4, ll. 10-13).
In col. 4, at l. 56, the description of structural elements 35 as a “convex portion” is confusing and inaccurate. A structure that is “convex” is, by definition, a structure with a curved surface. However, based on the illustration of the structural elements 35 in Fig. 4, the disclosed structure does not have a curved surface. Note that “convex portion” also appears at col. 4, l. 60, col. 5, ll. 3 and 5, and col. 6, l. 21. Further, “convex portions” appears to col. 5, ll. 18-19.
In col. 4, at l. 56, “one or more…portion 35, which extends” should read “one or more…portions 35, which extend”.
In col. 4, at l. 59, “is easily” should read “are easily”.
In col. 4, at ll. 62-64, “which causes the inside and outside of the back suction tube 34 separated and no droplet sucked into the back suction tube 34” is confusing and incorrect grammatically. It is also inaccurate because the back suction tube is not “separated”.
In col. 5, at l. 49, “Even the” should read “Even with the”.
In col. 5, at l. 51, “droplets that forms” should read “droplets the form”.
In col. 5, the sentence appearing at ll. 53-56 is confusing and incorrect grammatically.
In col. 5, at l. 59, “via carbon” should read “via the carbon”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l). Figs. 1-4 contain lines and reference numbers that are blurry. In some cases, the lines and reference numbers are illegible. For example, in Fig. 2, the reference number 41 is illegible, and the lead line for reference number 3 is also illegible/unclear. Reference numbers in the other figures are also hard to decipher. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3) because Fig. 3 is a sectional view that lacks the required hatching. Hatching must be used to indicate section portions of an object, and must be made by regularly spaced oblique parallel lines spaced sufficiently apart to enable the lines to be distinguished without difficulty. Hatching should not impede the clear reading of the reference characters and lead lines. If it is not possible to place reference characters outside the hatched area, the hatching may be broken off wherever reference characters are inserted. Hatching must be at a substantial angle to the surrounding axes or principal lines, preferably 45°. The parts in cross section must show proper material(s) by hatching with regularly spaced parallel oblique strokes, the space between strokes being chosen on the basis of the total area to be hatched. The various parts of a cross section of the same item should be hatched in the same manner and should accurately and graphically indicate the nature of the material(s) that is illustrated in cross section. The hatching of juxtaposed different elements must be angled in a different way. In the case of large areas, hatching may be confined to an edging drawn around the entire inside of the outline of the area to be hatched. Different types of hatching should have different conventional meanings as regards the nature of a material seen in cross section.
The drawing objections will not be held in abeyance.
Response Period
A shortened statutory period for reply is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Amendments in Reissue Applications
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification, claims or drawings must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g).
Failure to fully comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g) will generally result in a notification to applicant that an amendment before final rejection is not completely responsive. Such an amendment after final rejection will not be entered.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Disclosure Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the patent for which reissue is sought is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this reissue application should be directed:
By Patent Center4: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail5 to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
501 Knox Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928.
/PETER C ENGLISH/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/TRT/
Terrence R. TillReexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/ SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 See explanation above concerning the pending correction of the first applicant’s name.
2 The Form PTO/AIA /96 filed on February 3, 2025 names the second assignee MAHLE International GmbH and purports to establish the ownership interest of this second assignee. It does not name or establish the ownership interest of the first assignee MAHLE Automotive Technologies (China) Co. Ltd.
3 All citations are to the English translation.
4 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).
5 Mail Stop REISSUE should only be used for the initial filing of reissue applications, and should not be used for any subsequently filed correspondence in reissue applications. See MPEP 1410.