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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim limitation “heater safety device” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “configured to prevent the heater from being overheated” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 13 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
heater safety device →no clearly linking structure
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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 13 is 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention
Claim 13 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 13, Applicant utilizes language interpreted to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as described under the heading “Claim Interpretation” above. As required by 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the claimed heater safety device is limited to what is disclosed in the written description and equivalents thereof. Since 35 USC 112(f) specifically requires that if one employs means plus function language in a claim, one must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language, if an applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 USC 112(b). In the present case, applicant does not explicitly state what corresponding structure or material acts will perform the recited function, nor does Applicant implicitly set forth such structure which would be clear to those skilled in the art what structure or material acts correspond to the means-plus-function limitation. Heater safety device is defined in the specification as (400) however (400) is illustrating a general area of tank housing. It is not clear what specific structure (400) is meant to represent. Further, element (400) is described as being electrically connected to the heater to stop an operation of the heater. This is merely more functional language of the capabilities of the heater safety device that does not clearly link any structure for performing the method. As such, it is unclear what structure is being claimed by applicant and the meets and bounds of the claims cannot be determined.
With further respect to claim 13, a claim limitation expressed in means- (or step-) plus-function language "shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof." 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. If the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation is indefinite because the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Such a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See also MPEP § 2181. Since Applicant’s disclosure fails to clearly link the corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function the heater safety device, the claims lack adequate written description.
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.
Claims 14 and 15 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.
With respect to claim 14, in line 7 the claim refers to “different directions”. It is unclear if these directions are referring to the already claimed up-down direction and reference directions, or if this merely requires the through holes to be in directions different from each other. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “a plurality of through-holes formed through the heating cover , at least one of the plurality of through-holes provided in one direction, and another of the at least one of the plurality of through-holes provided in a second different direction”.
With respect to claim 15, in lines 5 and 6, the claim refers to “the other through-holes”. However, which holes of the plurality of through-holes are to be considered the other through-holes is not clear. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “a closing member coupled to the plurality of through-holes which do not include the filter member and configured to close the which do not include the filter member”.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 10, 11, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,946,927 to Dieckmann et al., hereinafter referred to as Dieckmann, in view of CN201662237 to Tang, hereinafter referred to as Tang, (see English language translation provided herewith).
In reference to claim 1, Dieckmann as modified by Tang discloses the claimed invention.
Dieckmann discloses a water heater, see figure 3, comprising:
a tank device including a tank (42) configured to extend in an up-down direction and store a fluid therein; and
a heating device configured to heat the outside of the tank to heat the fluid in the tank,
wherein one direction crossing the up-down direction is referred to as a reference direction, and
wherein the heating device includes:
a compressor (50) configured to compress a refrigerant;
a condenser (60) having an upper end portion connected (albeit indirectly) with the compressor and having a shape surrounding an outer peripheral surface of the tank (42, as seen in figure 3), the condenser being configured to condense the refrigerant released from the compressor;
an expansion valve (69) connected with a lower end portion of the condenser and configured to expand the refrigerant released from the condenser; and
an evaporator (70) configured to heat the refrigerant passing through the expansion valve.
Dieckmann fails to disclose the compressor located in the reference direction with respect to a lower side of the tank. However, Dieckmann does teach that the particular location of the compressor is unimportant since the embodiment of figure 7 and 8 show a different location of the compressor. Further, Tang teaches that placing a compressor at a bottom of a side cavity of a water tank is known, see underlined portion of pages 1 and 2 of the English language translation. This is strong evidence that rearranging the compressor of Dieckmann as claimed would not have modified the operation of the device. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Dieckmann by Tang and rearrange the location of the compressor such that the compressor located in the reference direction with respect to a lower side of the tank since it has been held that when the particular position of the element would not have modified the operation of the device, then the particular placement of the device is an obvious matter of design choice, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
In reference to claim 2, Dieckmann as modified by Tang discloses the claimed invention.
Dieckmann discloses the expansion valve (69) is located above the condenser (60, see figure 3).
In reference to claim 3, Dieckmann as modified by Tang discloses the claimed invention.
Dieckmann discloses a fan (74) configured to form airflow passing through the evaporator (70),
wherein the fan (74) is located above the compressor (50), see figure 3.
In reference to claim 6, Dieckmann as modified by Tang discloses the claimed invention.
Dieckmann discloses the evaporator (70) is located above the compressor (50), see figure 3.
In reference to claim 10, Dieckmann as modified by Tang discloses the claimed invention.
Dieckmann discloses the condenser (60) includes:
a first winding area (see annotated reference below for the examiner's definition of the first winding area) configured to surround the outer peripheral surface of the tank; and
a second winding area (see annotated reference below for the examiner's definition of the second winding area) located above the first winding area and configured to surround the outer peripheral surface of the tank, and
wherein the first winding area has a shorter length in the up-down direction than the second winding area.
PNG
media_image1.png
627
701
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note that a winding area is an extremely broad term which can be interpreted to mean any area of condenser that includes winding. Since the claims do not define the boundaries of the winding area, it is reasonable to define any two areas of windings of the condenser as the claimed first and second winding areas.
In reference to claim 11, Dieckmann as modified by Tang discloses the claimed invention.
Dieckmann discloses a heater (26) attached through the tank and configured to directly heat the fluid in the tank, see figure.
In reference to claim 18, Dieckmann as modified by Tang discloses the claimed invention.
Dieckmann discloses the tank device further includes:
an inlet passage (100) connected with the tank and configured to introduce the fluid into the tank; and
an outlet passage (102) connected with the tank and configured to release the fluid in the tank to a consumption site.
In reference to claim 21, Dieckmann as modified by Tang discloses the claimed invention.
Dieckmann discloses the condenser (60) includes:
a first winding area (see annotated reference below for the examiner's definition of the first winding area) configured to surround the outer peripheral surface of the tank; and
a second winding area (see annotated reference below for the examiner's definition of the second winding area) located above the first winding area and configured to surround the outer peripheral surface of the tank, and
wherein the first winding area has a longer length in the up-down direction than the second winding area.
PNG
media_image2.png
636
713
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Note that a winding area is an extremely broad term which can be interpreted to mean any area of condenser that includes winding. Since the claims do not define the boundaries of the winding area, it is reasonable to define any two areas of windings of the condenser as the claimed first and second winding areas.
Claims 1, 3-5, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2,668,420 to Hammellll, hereinafter referred to as Hammellll in view of Dieckmann
In reference to claim 1, Hammelll as modified by Dieckmann disclose the claimed invention.
Hammelll discloses a water heater (10, see figure 4) comprising:
a tank device including a tank (15) configured to extend in an up-down direction and store a fluid therein; and
a heating device configured to heat the outside of the tank to heat the fluid in the tank,
wherein one direction crossing the up-down direction is referred to as a reference direction, and
wherein the heating device includes:
a compressor (48) located in the reference direction with respect to a lower side of the tank (15) and configured to compress a refrigerant;
a condenser (50) having an upper end portion (76) connected with the compressor (48) (see column 6 lines 6-12) and the condenser being configured to condense the refrigerant released from the compressor;
an expansion valve (80) connected with a lower end portion of the condenser (see column 6 lines 22-25) and configured to expand the refrigerant released from the condenser; and
an evaporator (49) configured to heat the refrigerant passing through the expansion valve.
Hammelll fails to disclose the condenser having a shape surrounding an outer peripheral surface of the tank.
Dieckmann teaches that in the art of heat pump water heaters, that it is a known method to provide the condenser (60) having a shape surrounding an outer peripheral surface of the tank (42). This is strong evidence that modifying (the base reference) as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., directly heat the tank walls with the heat of refrigerant such that the desuperheating, condensing, and subcooling region are directly cooled by the water tank). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Hammelll by Dieckmann such that, the condenser has a shape surrounding an outer peripheral surface of the tank, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of directly heating the tank walls with the heat of refrigerant such that the desuperheating, condensing, and subcooling region are directly cooled by the water tank.
In reference to claim 3, Hammelll as modified by Dieckmann disclose the claimed invention.
Hammelll discloses a fan (60) configured to form airflow passing through the evaporator (49), wherein the fan(60) is located above the compressor (48), see figure 4.
In reference to claim 4, Hammelll as modified by Dieckmann disclose the claimed invention.
Hammell discloses the heating device includes a first partition wall (bottom wall of duct 51) located between the fan (60) and the compressor (48).
In reference to claim 5, Hammelll as modified by Dieckmann disclose the claimed invention.
Hammell discloses the heating device further includes a heating cover (43) disposed in the reference direction with respect to the tank device (15) and configured to cover the compressor (48), the expansion valve (80), and the evaporator (49), and
wherein the first partition wall is brought into contact with the heating cover (at 56 as seen in figure 4).
In reference to claim 14, Hammelll as modified by Dieckmann disclose the claimed invention.
Hammell discloses the heating device further includes a heating cover (43) disposed in the reference direction with respect to the tank device (15) and configured to cover the compressor (48), the expansion valve (80), and the evaporator (49), and
wherein the heating cover includes a plurality of through-holes (54/56) formed through the heating cover , at least one of the plurality of through-holes ( provided in one direction, and another of the at least one of the plurality of through-holes provided in a second different direction (see figure 4).
In reference to claim 15, Hammelll as modified by Dieckmann disclose the claimed invention.
Hammell discloses the heating device further includes:
a filter member (screen 57) disposed in some of the plurality of through-holes (56); and
a closing member (55) coupled to the other through-holes (54) and configured to close the other through-holes.
In reference to claim 17, Hammelll as modified by Dieckmann disclose the claimed invention.
Hammell discloses the fan (60) is an axial-flow fan (as illustrated in figure 4).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickman as modified by Tang as applied to claim 11 supra, and in further view of US 2010/0209084 to Nelson et al., hereinafter referred to as Nelson.
In reference to claim 12, Dieckmann as modified by Tang and Nelson disclose the claimed invention.
Dieckmann discloses that a second resistant element can be added (see column 7 lines 32-40 but fails to disclose the first heater member disposed between the first winding area and the second winding area; and the second heater member disposed above the second winding area.
Nelson, figure 5A, teaches that in the art of heat pump water heaters that it is a known method to provide the heater includes a first heater member (524) disposed between the first winding area (lower coil) and the second winding area (upper two coils); and a second heater member (522) disposed above the second winding area (upper two coils). This is strong evidence that modifying Dieckmann as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., provide for more even heating within the tank). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Dieckmann by Nelson such that, a first heater member was disposed between the first winding area and the second winding area and a second heater member was disposed above the second winding area since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of even heating of the water within the tank.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickman as modified by Tang and Nelson as applied to claim 12 supra, and in further view of US 2019/0061463 to OH et al., hereinafter referred to as OH.
In reference to claim 13, Dieckmann as modified by Tang, Nelson, and OH disclose the claimed invention.
Dieckmann fails to disclose a heater safety device electrically connected with the heater and configured to prevent the heater from being overheated.
OH teaches that in the art of water heating of a resistive heating devices (300), that it is a known method to provide a heater safety device (500) electrically connected with the heater and configured to prevent the heater from being overheated [0034]. This is strong evidence that modifying Dieckmann as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., prevent the heater from overheating [0018]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Dieckmann by OH such that the heater included a heater safety device electrically connected with the heater and configured to prevent the heater from being overheated, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of preventing the heater from overheating.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickman as modified by Tang as applied to claim 1 supra, and in further view of WO2019163009 to Yoshida et al., hereinafter referred to as Yoshida
In reference to claim 16, Dieckmann as modified by Tang and Yoshida disclose the claimed invention.
Dieckmann fails to disclose the compressor is an inverter compressor, and wherein the evaporator is a parallel flow heat exchanger.
Yoshida teaches that it is a known method in the art of heat pump hot water heaters to provide an inverter compressor, and a parallel flow evaporator, see underlined portion of page 2 of the English language translation. Note a plate fin heat exchanger is considered a parallel flow evaporator since the flow of refrigerant will happen between parallel plates from an inlet header to an outlet header. This is strong evidence that modifying Dieckmann as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., control the capacity of the compressor and high heat transfer efficiency). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Dieckmann by Yoshida such that, the compressor is an inverter compressor, and wherein the evaporator is a parallel flow heat exchanger, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of control the capacity of the compressor and high heat transfer efficiency of the evaporator.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieckmann in view of Tang as applied supra and in further view of US 2022/0018576 to Zimmer et al., hereinafter referred to as Zimmer.
In reference to claim 19, Dieckmann as modified by Tang and Zimmer disclose the claimed invention.
Dieckmann fails to disclose an end portion of the inlet passage located in the tank is located below an end portion of the outlet passage located in the tank.
Zimmer teaches that in the art of heat pump water heaters that it is a known method to provide an end portion of an inlet passage (104) located in the tank (112) is located below an end portion of the outlet passage (107) located in the tank (112), see figure 2. This is strong evidence that modifying Dieckmann as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. provide the cold water to the bottom of the tank and take the hot water from the top such that the hottest water is at the top of the tank is supplied to the load). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Dieckmann by Zimmer such that, an end portion of the inlet passage located in the tank is located below an end portion of the outlet passage located in the tank since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of providing the hottest water in the tank to the load.
In reference to claim 20, Dieckmann as modified by Tang and Zimmer disclose the claimed invention.
Dieckmann as modified fails to disclose the tank device further includes:
a connecting passage configured to diverge from the inlet passage and the outlet passage and connect the inlet passage and the outlet passage to each other; and
a mixing valve disposed in-line with the connecting passage and configured to adjust a flow rate of the fluid passing through the connecting passage.
Zimmer teaches that in the art of heat pump water heaters, that it is a known method to provide a connecting passage (161) configured to diverge from the inlet passage (104) and the outlet passage (106) and connect the inlet passage (104) and the outlet passage (106) to each other; and a mixing valve (200) disposed in-line with the connecting (161) passage and configured to adjust a flow rate of the fluid passing through the connecting passage [0040]. Here Zimmer teaches that this arrangement regulates a temperature of water within mixed water outlet conduit. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Dieckmann by Zimmer such that, the tank device further included a connecting passage configured to diverge from the inlet passage and the outlet passage and connect the inlet passage and the outlet passage to each other; and a mixing valve disposed in-line with the connecting passage and configured to adjust a flow rate of the fluid passing through the connecting passage, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of regulating a temperature of water within the mixed water outlet conduit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSEY D BAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 10AM-8PM (ET).
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/CASSEY D BAUER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights