Detailed Action
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 11 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 11, the claim recites several times in lines 3-6 the limitation of “the gateway device”. The claim previously defines a plurality of gateway devices. Therefore, it is unclear, each time the limitation of “the gateway device” is recited, to which of the plurality of gateway devices the limitation is referring. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution:
11. The method of claim 10, wherein the gateway device is a first gateway device of a plurality of gateway devices accessible to the sensor device via the sub-GHz communication protocol, and further comprising transmitting the configuration data to the sensor device from the first gateway device in response to the server device determining that the first gateway device has a strongest signal strength among the plurality of gateway devices and in response to the server device designating the first gateway device as a primary gateway device for the sensor device.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mirza et al. (US-12,359,980).
In regards to claim 1, Mirza teaches a method for monitoring culinary temperatures [col. 1 L. 12-13]. Mirza teaches that the method comprises receiving, at a gateway device, temperature data transmitted from a sensor device [fig. 1 elements 140 (gateway) and 150 (sensor device), col. 5 L. 47-50]. Also, Mirza teaches that the sensor data is received by the gateway using Z-Wave or LoRaWAN protocol [col. 5 L. 37-47]. This teaching means that the sensor data is received via a sub-gigahertz (sub-GHz) communication protocol because Z-Wave and LoRaWAN protocols use frequencies lower than 1GHz. Furthermore, Mirza teaches that the temperature data is based on a temperature of a food product measured with a temperature sensor of the sensor device [fig. 1 elements 150 and 170, col. 5 L. 15-18]. Mirza also teaches that the method comprises transmitting the temperature data from the gateway device to a server device via Internet, WiFi or cellular protocols (a network communication protocol that is different from the sub-GHz communication protocol) fig. 1 elements 110 (server) and 140 (gateway), col. 4 L. 63-67, col. 3 L. 32-33, L. 40 and L. 63-65, col. 5 L. 1-13 and L. 47-50]. Furthermore, Mirza teaches that the method comprises causing the temperature of the food product to be displayed on a client device based on the temperature data being received by the server device over the network communication protocol [fig. 1 element 120 (client), col. 3 L. 13-16 and L. 28-31, col. 5 L. 57-63].
In regards to claim 2, Mirza, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the network communication protocol is WiFi or Internet (an internet protocol (IP)-based network protocol) [col. 5 L. 1-13].
In regards to claim 5, Mirza, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the sensor device measures the temperature of the food product based on the sensor device being at least partially positioned within the food product [fig. 1 elements 150 and 170, col. 5 L. 15-18].
In regards to claim 7, Mirza, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the sub-GHz communication protocol is Z-Wave or LoRaWAN [col. 5 L. 37-47]. This teaching means the sub-GHz communication protocol operates at a frequency of about 433 MHz to about 915 MHz because Z-Wave and LoRaWAN protocols use those frequencies to perform communications.
In regards to claim 19, Mirza, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches a method performing the claimed functions of the claimed system using the claimed components of the claimed system. Therefore, Mirza also teaches the claimed system.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirza et al. (US-12,359,980) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Li et al. (US-12,501,237).
In regards to claim 3, Mirza, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the gateway transmits the sensor data to the server using the network communication protocol [col. 5 L. 1-13]. However, Mirza does not teach that the network communication protocol is a message queuing telemetry transport (MQTT) protocol.
On the other hand, Li teaches that a gateway can receive sensor data and transform it into MQTT protocol in order to transmit the sensor data to a server [abstract L. 4-12]. This teaching means that the network communication protocol is a message queuing telemetry transport (MQTT) protocol.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Li’s teachings of using MQTT protocol to perform communications between the gateway and the server in the method taught by Mirza because MQTT protocol provides reliable communication of the sensor data between the gateway and the server.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirza et al. (US-12,359,980) in view of Li et al. (US-12,501,237) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Toscano (US-2022/0085977).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Mirza and Li, as applied in the rejection of claim 3 above, further teaches that the network communication protocol is a message queuing telemetry transport (MQTT) protocol [see Li abstract L. 4-12], and that the protocol is used to transmit the sensor data [see Li abstract L. 4-12]. It is inherent that the transmission of the sensor data using the MQTT protocol comprises the transmission of a message compatible with the MQTT protocol comprising a payload comprising the sensor data. Therefore, the combination teaches that transmitting the temperature data from the gateway device includes formatting the temperature data as a network message comprising a message payload compatible with the MQTT protocol.
The combination does not teach that the network message also comprises a topic identifier.
On the other hand, Toscano teaches that a message compatible with the MQTT protocol comprises a topic name (identifier) in addition to the payload [fig. 4, par. 0104 L. 1-6 and L. 18-20].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Toscano’s teachings of using MQTT message that includes a topic identifier in the method taught by the combination because it will permit the receiver of the message to know the category of the data contained in the payload.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirza et al. (US-12,359,980) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Brown et al. (US-10,690,540).
In regards to claim 6, Mirza, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that causing the temperature of the food product to be displayed on the client device includes transmitting the temperature data from the server device to the client device [col. 3 L. 13-16 and L. 63-65, col. 5 L. 57-63]. However, Mirza does not teach that the temperature data includes instructions for displaying the temperature on the client device.
On the other hand, Brown teaches that a server providing sensor data to a client device can be a web server that provides a user interface to the client device so it can display the sensor data [col. 9 L. 42-48]. This teaching means that the sensor data includes a user interface (instructions for displaying the temperature on the client device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Brown’s teachings of using a web server as the server of the system in the method taught by Mirza because it will permit a user to access the temperature data from any device having an internet browser.
Claim(s) 8, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirza et al. (US-12,359,980) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Hedlund et al. (US-11,134,321).
In regards to claim 8, Mirza, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the gateway is located at a distance of the sensor device to wirelessly receive the sensor data from the sensor device [fig. 1elements 140 and 150, col. 5 L. 47-50]. However, Mirza does not teach that the data is transmitted through an enclosure of a cooking apparatus.
On the other hand, Hedlund teaches that the sensor device can be used to monitor temperature of food located inside an enclosure of a cooking apparatus, and that sensor data can be wirelessly transmitted to a receiver outside the enclosure of the cooking apparatus [fig. 1 element 10 (sensor device), 20 (enclosure) and 30 (receiver), col. 3 L. 17-22, col. 4 L. 1-3 and L. 54-56]. This teaching means that receiving the temperature data at the receiver device includes receiving the temperature data transmitted through an enclosure of a cooking apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Hedlund’s teachings of using the sensor device inside an enclosure of a cooking apparatus in the method taught by Mirza because it will permit the system to monitor the temperature of food while is been cooked.
In regards to claim 15, Mirza, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach that the data is transmitted through an enclosure of a cooking apparatus.
On the other hand, Hedlund teaches that the sensor device can be used to monitor temperature of food located inside an enclosure of a cooking apparatus, and that sensor data can be wirelessly transmitted to a receiver outside the enclosure of the cooking apparatus [fig. 1 element 10 (sensor device), 20 (enclosure) and 30 (receiver), col. 3 L. 17-22, col. 4 L. 1-3 and L. 54-56]. This teaching means that receiving the temperature data at the receiver device includes receiving the temperature data transmitted through an enclosure of a cooking apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Hedlund’s teachings of using the sensor device inside an enclosure of a cooking apparatus in the method taught by Mirza because it will permit the system to monitor the temperature of food while is been cooked.
The combination of Mirza and Hedlund teaches that the temperature data is received by the gateway through an enclosure of a cooking apparatus over a sub-GHz communication protocol such as LoRaWAN or other well-known communication protocol [see Mirza col. 5 L. 37-47, see Hedlund fig. 1 element 10 (sensor device), 20 (enclosure) and 30 (receiver), col. 3 L. 17-22, col. 4 L. 1-3 and L. 54-56]. This teaching means that the gateway device can be placed over 560 feet away from the sensor device when placed inside the enclosure. Mirza does not explicitly teach that the gateway device is placed up to 560 feet away from the sensor device when the sensor device is inside the enclosure. However, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have designed the system so the gateway can be placed up to 560 feet away from the sensor device when the sensor device is inside the enclosure because that distance will permit reliable communications between the gateway and the sensor device when the sensor device is inside the enclosure.
In regards to claim 20, Mirza, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches a method performing the claimed functions. However, Mirza does not explicitly teach that the method can be implemented by a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
On the other hand, Hedlund teaches that the operations of food temperature monitoring system can be implemented using a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations [col. 14 L. 15-35].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Hedlund’s teachings of implementing the method using a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium in the method taught by Mirza because it will permit a user to implement the method using a processor.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirza et al. (US-12,359,980) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Hedlund et al. (US-11,134,321) and Obinata et al. (JP-2004200735A).
In regards to claim 9, Mirza, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach that the system can comprise of one or more additional sensor devices.
On the other hand, Hedlund teaches that a system for monitoring temperature of food can comprise one or more additional sensor devices transmitting temperature data of other food items [col. 8 L. 59-61 and L. 65-67, col. 9 L. 1-3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Hedlund’s teachings of having a plurality of sensor devices in the system in the method taught by Mirza because it will permit the system to monitor temperature of a plurality of food items.
The combination of Mirza and Hedlund teaches that the system comprises one or more additional sensor devices that perform transmissions of temperature data [see Hedlund col. 8 L. 59-61 and L. 65-67, col. 9 L. 1-3]. However, the combination does not teach that the sensor device detects transmissions of the one or more additional sensor devices and implements a transmission delay when the transmissions are detected.
On the other hand, Obinata teaches that a device performing transmission of data can comprise a back off counter used to know when to transmit data, and transmits the data when the counter reaches zero [pg. 2 L. 33-37]. This teaching means that the device transmits data at a transmission interval. Also, Obinata teaches that the device stops the back off counter when an active transmission of another device is detected, and resumes the counter when no active transmissions are detected [pg. 2 L. 39-50, pg. 3 L. 1-2]. This teaching means that the device implements that the transmission interval is dynamic and a transmission delay is implemented in response to the detection of active transmissions of one or more additional devices. In other words, receiving data includes receiving the data at a dynamic transmission interval of the device, the dynamic transmission interval comprising one or more delayed transmissions in response to the device detecting one or more active transmissions of one or more additional devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Obinata’s teachings of implementing a transmission delay in the method taught by the combination because it will permit the sensor device to transmit data reliably and avoid transmission collisions with the additional sensor devices.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirza et al. (US-12,359,980) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Myers et al. (US-8,477,830).
In regards to claim 10, Mirza, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach that transmitting configuration data to the sensor device, wherein the configuration data indicates a dynamic transmission interval for the sensor device to implement.
On the other hand, Myers teaches that a node of a network can transmit data at a transmission interval, and can receive updates to the transmission interval (configuration data) [col. 35 L. 33-38]. This teaching means that the transmission interval of the node is dynamic since the transmission interval can be updated by the node upon receiving an update for the transmission interval (configuration data). In other words, the method comprises transmitting configuration data to the node via a communication protocol, wherein the configuration data indicates a dynamic transmission interval for the sensor device to implement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Myers’s teachings of transmitting updates of the transmission interval to the sensor device in the method taught by the combination because it will permit the system to adjust when the sensor device transits its data.
The combination of Mirza and Myers teaches that the sensor device performs communication using the sub-GHz communication protocol [see Mirza col. 5 L. 37-47]. The combination also teaches that the sensor device receives the configuration data [see Myers col. 35 L. 33-38]. Since the sensor device communicates using the sub-GHz communication protocol, the configuration data will be received using the sub-GHz communication protocol, In other words, the transmission of the configuration data to the sensor device is via the sub-GHz communication protocol.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirza et al. (US-12,359,980) and Myers et al. (US-8,477,830) as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of Teboulle et al. (US-10,505,666).
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Mirza and Myers, as applied in the rejection of claim 10 above, does not teach that the gateway device is a first gateway device of a plurality of gateway devices accessible to the sensor device via the sub-GHz communication protocol. The combination also does not teach transmitting the configuration data to the sensor device from the first gateway device in response to the server device determining that the first gateway device has a strongest signal strength among the plurality of gateway devices and in response to the server device designating the first gateway device as a primary gateway device for the sensor device.
On the other hand, Teboulle teaches that plurality of gateway can be present in a system in which a device transmits data to a server [fig. 1 elements 11A and 11B, col. 6 L. 64-65]. This teaching means that the gateway device is a first gateway device of a plurality of gateway devices accessible to the device. Also, Teboulle teaches that the server can receive data from the device from the plurality of gateway devices and select a primary gateway device based on which gateway device has the strongest signal strength, and in response to the selection, the primary gateway device is used to send data to the device [col. 8 L. 31-35, L. 44-49, L. 52-62, col. 9 L. 3-10]. This teaching means that the method comprises transmitting data to the device from the first gateway device in response to the server device determining that the first gateway device has a strongest signal strength among the plurality of gateway devices and in response to the server device designating the first gateway device as a primary gateway device for the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Teboulle’s teachings of selecting a gateway having the strongest signal strength as the gateway device that sends data to the device in the method taught by the combination because it will permit to transmit data to the sensor device in a reliable manner when a plurality of gateways are present in the system.
The combination of Mirza, Myers and Teboulle teaches that the system comprises a plurality of gateway devices and that the sensor device communicates with the gateways using Z-Wave or LoRaWAN (a sub-GHz communication protocol) [see Mirza col. 5 L. 37-47, see Teboulle fig. 1 elements 11A and 11B, col. 6 L. 64-65]. This teaching means that the gateway device is a first gateway device of a plurality of gateway devices accessible to the sensor device via the sub-GHz communication protocol. Furthermore, the combination teaches that the first gateway device transmits the configuration data to the sensor device [see Myers col. 35 L. 33-38], and that the server selects the first gateway device as a primary gateway device that transmits data to the sensor device when it is determined that the first gateway device has the strongest signal strength [see Teboulle col. 8 L. 31-35, L. 44-49, L. 52-62, col. 9 L. 3-10]. These teaching means that the method comprises transmitting the configuration data to the sensor device from the first gateway device in response to the server device determining that the first gateway device has a strongest signal strength among the plurality of gateway devices and in response to the server device designating the first gateway device as a primary gateway device for the sensor device.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirza et al. (US-12,359,980) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Goulis et al. (US-11,274,973).
In regards to claim 12, Mirza, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach that the temperature data includes an adjusted temperature of the food product as measured and calibrated by the sensor device.
On the other hand, Goulis teaches that a culinary temperature sensor device can provide an adjusted temperature of the food product as measured and calibrated by the sensor device [fig. 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Goulis’ teachings of providing adjusted temperature data in the method taught by Mirza because it will permit the sensor device to provide accurate temperature measurements of the food.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirza et al. (US-12,359,980) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of McGlade (US-2025/0137319).
In regards to claim 13, Mirza, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the temperature sensor device comprises a battery [col. 5 L. 29-34]. However, Mirza does not teach that the temperature data indicates one or more of an ambient temperature, a battery level, device information, or debug data for the sensor device, and that the method comprises causing one or more of the ambient temperature, battery level, device information, or debug data to be displayed on the client device based on the temperature data being received at the server device.
On the other hand, McGlade teaches that a sensor device powered by a battery can transmit to the server battery level data that can be accessed by a user together with measurements of the sensor device [par. 0029, par. 0104 L. 16-21 and L. 25-29, par. 0159]. This teaching means that the sensor data indicates a battery level, and that the method comprises causing the battery level to be displayed on the client device based on the sensor data being received at the server device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use McGlade’s teachings of providing battery level data to the user in the method taught by Mirza because it will permit the system to show the user when the battery of the sensor device needs recharging or replacement.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirza et al. (US-12,359,980) as applied to claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 14, Mirza, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches that the temperature data is received by the gateway over a sub-GHz communication protocol such as LoRaWAN or other well-known communication protocol [col. 5 L. 37-47]. This teaching means that the gateway device can be placed 1500 feet or more away from the sensor device without obstruction. Mirza does not explicitly teach that the gateway device is placed up to 1500 feet away from the sensor device without obstruction. However, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have designed the system so the gateway can be placed up to 1500 feet away from the sensor device without obstruction because that distance will permit reliable communications between the gateway and the sensor device.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirza et al. (US-12,359,980) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Hedlund et al. (US-11,134,321) and Shaori et al. (US-11,900,787).
In regards to claim 16, Mirza, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach that the gateway receives temperature data transmitted from an additional sensor device.
On the other hand, Hedlund teaches that the system can comprise a plurality of temperature sensor devices sensing temperature of a plurality of food items, and that a server can provide the temperature data of the plurality of temperature sensor devices to a client for display [fig. 20, col. 8 L. 59-61 and L. 65-67, col. 9 L. 1-3, col. 12 L. 38-44]. This teaching means that additional temperature data of an additional sensor device is transmitted to the server, wherein the additional temperature data is based on a temperature of an additional food product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Hedlund’s teachings of having a plurality of temperature sensor devices in the system in the method taught by Mirza because it will permit the system to monitor the temperature of a plurality of food items at the same time.
The combination of Mirza and Hedlund teaches that the temperature data of the sensor device and the additional sensor device are transmitted to a server [see Mirza col. 5 L. 47-50, see Hedlund col. 12 L. 38-44]. However, the combination does not teach that a single gateway is used to receive the sensor data from the sensor devices and transmit the received sensor data to the server.
On the other hand, Shaori teaches when a plurality of temperature sensor devices are present in a system, a single gateway device can be used to receive sensor data from the sensor devices and transmit the received sensor data to a server [fig. 1, col. 3 L. 55-65, col. 4 L. 1-2]. This teaching means that the gateway device receives the additional temperature data transmitted from the additional sensor device and transmits the additional temperature data to the server device via the network communication protocol.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Shaori’s teachings of using a single gateway to receive and transmit the sensor data from a plurality of temperature sensor devices in the method taught by the combination because it will permit the system to transmit data from a plurality of sensor devices using a single gateway thereby reducing costs of the system.
The combination of Mirza, Hedlund and Shaori further teaches displaying the temperature of the additional food product, received at the server, on the client device [see Hedlund col. 12 L. 38-44].
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Mirza, Hedlund and Shaori, as applied in the rejection of claim 16 above, teaches that sensor devices communicate with the gateway using LoRaWAN or Z-Wave communication protocol [see Mirza col. 5 L. 37-47]. This teaching means that the method comprises receiving the additional temperature data via the sub-GHz communication protocol.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirza et al. (US-12,359,980), Hedlund et al. (US-11,134,321) and Shaori et al. (US-11,900,787) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of You et al (CN-111721446A).
In regards to claim 18, Mirza, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches that the gateway device receives the additional sensor data from the additional sensor device via a wireless connection of the additional sensor device and the gateway device [see Shaori fig. 1, col. 3 L. 55-65, col. 4 L. 1-2]. However, the combination does not teach that the connection can be a wired connection.
On the other hand, You teaches that a temperature sensor can communicate with a gateway device via a wired connection [pg. 2 L. 28-30].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use You’s teachings of using a using a wired connection for communication between the temperature sensor device and the gateway device in the additional sensor device taught by the combination because it will permit the system to receive data from sensor devices that do not have wireless capabilities.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, STEVEN LIM can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688