NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This non-final office action addresses U.S. Application No. 19/272,567, which is a narrowing reissue application of U.S. Application No. 15/170,397 (hereinafter the “397 Application"), entitled FOREIGN OBJECT DETECTION IN WIRELESS ENERGY TRANSFER SYSTEMS, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,027,184 (hereinafter the “184 Patent").
The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1-16 are pending and examined herein.
Claims 1-16 are rejected.
I. STATUS OF APPLICATION, PATENT AND CLAIMS
The 184 Patent issued with claims 1-16 on July 17, 2018. Because this reissue application was filed more than two years after this date, this reissue application can only be a narrowing reissue. See 35 U.S.C. §251.
Inter partes review proceeding IPR2024-00105 (hereinafter the “IPR2024-00105 Proceeding”) concluded with final written decision on May 20, 2025 (hereinafter the IPR2024-00105 Final Decision”) and a Certificate issued on August 7, 2025 (hereinafter the “IRP2024-00105 Certificate”), which cancelled claims 1-13 and 16.
Applicant filed a preliminary amendment on July 17, 2025 (hereinafter the “2025 Preliminary Amendment”) along with the filing of the present application. In the 2025 Preliminary Amendment, patent claims 1 and 16 were amended and patent claims 2-15 were unchanged.
Therefore, claims 1-16 are pending and will be examined in this reissue application.
II. PRIORITY
Examiners acknowledge the Applicant’s claim that present application is a reissue application of the 397 Application, now the 184 Patent. Examiners further acknowledge the claim that the 397 Application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/608,956, filed September 10, 2012, now U.S. Patent No. 9,442,172. Examiners finally acknowledge the claim of priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/532,785, filed September 9, 2011.
III. OBJECTION TO CLAIM AMENDMENTS
37 C.F.R. §1.173 Reissue specification, drawings, and amendments (in part)
(b) Making amendments in a reissue application. An amendment in a reissue application is made either by physically incorporating the changes into the specification when the application is filed, or by a separate amendment paper. If amendment is made by incorporation, markings pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section must be used. If amendment is made by an amendment paper, the paper must direct that specified changes be made, as follows:…
(2) Claims. An amendment paper must include the entire text of each claim being changed by such amendment paper and of each claim being added by such amendment paper. For any claim changed by the amendment paper, a parenthetical expression "amended," "twice amended," etc., should follow the claim number. Each changed patent claim and each added claim must include markings pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, except that a patent claim or added claim should be canceled by a statement canceling the claim without presentation of the text of the claim.
(d) Changes shown by markings. Any changes relative to the patent being reissued that are made to the specification, including the claims but excluding "Large Tables" (§ 1.58(c) ), a "Computer Program Listing Appendix" (§ 1.96(c) ), a "Sequence Listing" (§ 1.821(c) ), and a "Sequence Listing XML" (§ 1.831(a) ) upon filing or by an amendment paper in the reissue application, must include the following markings:
(1) The matter to be omitted by reissue must be enclosed in brackets; and
(2) The matter to be added by reissue must be underlined.
(g) Amendments made relative to the patent. All amendments must be made relative to the patent specification, including the claims, and drawings, which are in effect as of the date of filing of the reissue application.
The amendments to the claims provided in the 2025 Preliminary Amendment are objected to because they use improper strikethrough. Appropriate correction is required to simply represent the proposed amendment with single bracketing for deletions and underlining for additions as required under the rules. See MPEP §1453 for guidance.
Examiners further object to the 2025 Preliminary Amendment because are the amendments are not made with respect to the original patent, i.e., the 184 Patent, which includes the IPR2024-00105 Certificate, which cancelled claims 1-13 and 16. Since claims 1-13 and 16 are cancelled on the face of the 184 Patent, it is improper to represent or renew these claims again in this reissue. Rather, Applicant is required to represent pending claims 1-13 and 16 in the 2025 Preliminary Amendment following the last patent claim number, starting with claim 17. Appropriate correction is required in response to this Office action.1
IV. REISSUE OATH/DECLARATION
37 C.F.R. §1.175 Reissue oath or declaration (in part).
(a) The inventor’s oath or declaration for a reissue application, in addition to complying with the requirements of § 1.63, § 1.64, or § 1.67, must also specifically identify at least one error pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 251 being relied upon as the basis for reissue and state that the applicant believes the original patent to be 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 the patentee had the right to claim in the patent.
(b) If the reissue application seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent (a basis for the reissue is the patentee claiming less than the patentee had the right to claim in the patent), the inventor's oath or declaration for a reissue application must identify a claim that the application seeks to broaden. A claim is a broadened claim if the claim is broadened in any respect.
The 2025 Reissue Declaration filed along with this reissue application is acknowledged. Examiners note the error statement as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
42
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As provided in the rule above, a proper reissue declaration “must also specifically identify at least one error…” This is accomplished by identifying a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid. See MPEP §1414(II).
Based on the forgoing guidelines, Examiners object to the 2025 Reissue Declaration on the basis that it fails identify any specific error. Simply stating the breadth of a claim is in error is insufficient, rather Applicant is required to specify language that is in error.
Accordingly, Applicant is required to provide a new reissue oath or declaration that identifies a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim in the 184 Patent, and how this error renders the 184 Patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid.
V. REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. §251
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §251:
Whenever any patent is, through error without any deceptive intention, 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.
V.A. Rejections Based on Improper Error Corrected
Claims 1-13 and 16 and this application as a whole are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §251 because these claims are not correcting any error in the original patent, i.e., the 184 Patent. Claims 1-13 and 16 of the 184 Patent have been cancelled on the face of the patent via the IPR2024-00105 Certificate and thus no longer exist in the 184 Patent. Therefore, Examiners find that it is improper for Applicant to use these claim numbers in a reissue application. If Applicant intends on pursuing the subject matter of pending claims 1-13 and 16 further in this reissue application, Examiners suggest and require Applicant to simply add them following the last patent claim, i.e., as “New” claims 17+.
V.B. Rejections Based on Defective Reissue Oath/Declaration
Claims 1-16 and this application as a whole are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §251 as being based on a defective reissue oath or declaration. The nature of the defects in the 2025 Reissue Declaration are noted above.
VI. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
After careful review of the original specification, the prosecution history, and unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiners, the Examiners find that they are unable to locate any lexicographic definitions (either express or implied) with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision with regard to pending and examined claims. Because the Examiners are unable to locate any lexicographic definitions with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision, the Examiners conclude that Applicant is not his own lexicographer for the pending and examined claims. See MPEP §2111.01(IV).
The Examiners further find that because the pending and examined claims herein recite neither “step for” nor “means for” nor any substitute therefore, the examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I). Because all examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I), the Examiners conclude that all examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f). See also Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215-16 (B.P.A.I. 2008)(precedential)(where the Board did not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because “means for” was not recited and because applicant still possessed an opportunity to amend the claims).
Because of the Examiners’ findings above that Applicant is not his own lexicographer and the pending and examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f) the pending and examined claims will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification since patentee has an opportunity to amend claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP §2111.01(I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP §2111.01(II).
VII. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
VII.A. Anticipation Rejections Applying Raedy
Claims 1, 2, 9 and 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0033224 to Steven Raedy (hereinafter “Raedy”).
Regarding claim 1, Raedy discloses:
1. A wireless energy transfer system with foreign object debris detection, the system comprising:
See Raedy FIG 1, reprinted below:
PNG
media_image2.png
294
740
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Raedy FIG. 1
a wireless energy transfer source comprising a source resonator configured to generate an oscillating magnetic field; and
See FIG. 1 above illustrating s source resonator 6.
a foreign object debris detection system comprising:
See FIG. 1 above and FIG. 4, reprinted below:
PNG
media_image3.png
322
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Raedy FIG. 4
at least one magnetic field sensor that does not require a power source and that does not produce its own magnetic field; and
See FIG. 4 above, coils 14a-d.
at least one readout circuit configured to measure one or more electrical parameters of at the at least one magnetic field sensor,
See FIG. 4 above, read out circuit comprising circuit 16 and display 18.
wherein the at least one magnetic field sensor is positioned within, and measures changes of, the magnetic field of the wireless energy transfer system; and
See FIGS. 1 and 4 above and ¶¶0019-0020 wherein the coils 14a-14d are placed within the magnetic field and measure changes in the magnetic field via calculated voltage differentials.
wherein the foreign object debris detection system is configured to verify that foreign object debris has not moved onto or over the source resonator while the source resonator is generating the oscillating magnetic field.
Examiners note this limitation merely requires a configuration of the foreign object debris detection system, which as recited in the claim comprises only at least one magnetic field sensor and a read-out circuit. As evidenced above, Raedy in FIGS. 1 and 4 disclose precisely such features and thus meets the “configuration” as claimed.
Furthermore, Raedy ¶0010 states:
The alignment system according to the invention can also be used to determine the presence of foreign metal objects within the inductive poles of the primary and secondary coils. This enables the charging system to be disabled when foreign metal objects are present in order to eliminate the risk of fire or injury resulting from overheating such objects during the charging process.
Thus, Raedy disclose precisely that the at least one sensor and the read out circuit “can be used” and thus are configured to “determine the present of foreign metal objects.”
Regarding claim 2, Raedy discloses the system of claim 1 as evidenced above and further wherein:
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the wireless energy transfer source is configured to generate the oscillating magnetic field to transfer energy to a vehicle.
See Raedy ¶0001.
Regarding claim 9, Raedy discloses the system of claim 1 as evidenced above and further wherein:
9. The system of claim 1, wherein the wireless energy transfer source is a component of a vehicle charging station.
See Raedy FIGS. 1 and 4 above.
Regarding claim 10, Raedy discloses the system of claim 1 as evidenced above and further wherein:
10. The system of claim 9, further comprising a device module configured to be mounted on an electric vehicle.
See Raedy FIGS. 1 and 4 above, module including receiver on vehicle.
VIII. CLAIM REJECTION - 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.
VIII.A. Obviousness Rejections Applying Raedy Fells
Claims 3-8, 11-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Raedy in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0084918 to Julian Fells et al. (hereinafter “Fells”).
Regarding claim 3, Raedy teaches the features of claim 1 as evidence above, but not wherein the detection system monitors for foreign objects prior to transfer of energy.
Nevertheless, Fells teaches:
A wireless energy transfer system with foreign object debris detection, the system comprising:
See Fells ¶0191 disclosing the general operation and structures of the wireless power supply. See also Fells FIG. 2, reprinted below:
PNG
media_image4.png
456
526
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fells FIG. 2
a wireless energy transfer source comprising a source resonator configured to generate an oscillating magnetic field; and
See Fells FIG. 2 above, wireless power supply 200 having a source resonator comprising primary coil 211 and capacitor 214. The PTAB found Fells discloses this feature. See IPR Final Decision page 12. Furthermore, during an object detection phase, the primary coil snes
a foreign object debris detection system, wherein the foreign object debris detection system is configured to verify that foreign object debris has not moved onto or over the source resonator while the source resonator is generating the oscillating magnetic field.
See Fells ¶0191 wherein “[t]he Sense Circuit 206 detects when an object is placed in (or removed from) the proximity of the Wireless power supply 200, but does not determine whether or not the object is a legitimate object, such as a valid secondary device, nor whether or not it desires power.” Further see ¶0194 “[a]fter the foreign object has been placed on the wireless power supply 200, an inductance change will be detected at the next sense point, B. This will then trigger the system to connect the mains. At point C, the system will look to see if it is a valid device, whether it requires power and whether there are foreign objects present.”
Furthermore, Fells teaches
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the foreign object debris detection system is configured to verify that foreign object debris has not moved onto or over the source resonator prior to a transfer of energy from the source resonator to the vehicle.
Se Fells FIG. 3, reprinted below and ¶¶0191-0196, wherein Fells teaches during
PNG
media_image5.png
452
464
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fells FIG. 3
an ultra low output power mode, i.e., no transfer of energy, the sense circuit 206 periodically checks for devices and foreign objects. If a foreign object is detected, then no transfer of power mode occurs. If a valid device is determined, then the power transfer goes into a power delivery mode.
It would have been obvious to incorporate the foreign object detection system of Fells into to the wireless energy transfer system of Raedy. This combination would not otherwise change the structures of Raedy shown in FIGS. 1and 2 above, but would merely add an additional foreign object detection circuit 206 as taught in Fells to the wireless power supply 2/6 of Raedy. One having ordinary skill in the art would do so to make sure a valid device (vehicle) is placed on the wireless power transfer system for power transfer and avoid power transfer in the event an invalid device or foreign object is placed on the wireless energy source. See Fells ¶¶0191-0196.
Regarding claim 4, Raedy and Fells teach the features of claim 3 as provided above and further:
4. The system of claim 3, wherein the foreign object debris detection system is configured to perform a health and/or status check of the wireless energy transfer source before the vehicle is positioned over the source resonator.
Note combination proposed for claim 3 above. See further Fells FIG. 3 above and ¶0196, note calibration step which checks the status/health of wireless power transfer system to make sure there are no rogue measurements.
Regarding claim 5, Raedy and Fells teach the features of claim 4 as provided above and further:
5. The system of claim 4, wherein the foreign object debris detection system is configured to perform the health and/or status check less frequently than the verification that foreign object debris has not moved onto or over the source resonator prior to a transfer of energy from the source resonator to the vehicle.
Note combination proposed for claim 3 above. See further Fells FIG. 3 above and ¶0196, note calibration step which checks the status/health of wireless power transfer system to make sure there are no rogue measurements, which, as shown in FIG. 3(c) occurs less frequently than foreign object/device verifications.
Regarding claim 6, Raedy and Fells teach the features of claim 4 as provided above and further:
6. The system of claim 4, wherein the foreign object debris detection system is configured to periodically perform the health and/or status check and the verification that foreign object debris has not moved onto or over the source resonator prior to a transfer of energy from the source resonator to the vehicle.
See discussion above for claims 3-5.
Regarding claim 7, Raedy and Fells teach the features of claim 2 as provided above and further:
7. The system of claim 2, wherein the foreign object debris detection system is configured to verify that foreign object debris has not moved onto or over the source resonator after the vehicle is positioned over the source resonator and prior to a transfer of energy from the source resonator to the vehicle.
See discussion above for claims 3-5.
Regarding claim 8, Raedy and Fells teach the features of claim 1 as provided above and further:
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the foreign object debris detection system is configured to verify that foreign object debris has not moved onto or over the source resonator prior to generation of the oscillating magnetic field.
See discussion above for claims 3-5.
Regarding claim 11, Raedy and Fells teach the features of claim 1 as provided above and further:
11. The system of claim 1, wherein the foreign object debris detection system is integrated into the wireless energy transfer source.
Note combination proposed above. Further note the foreign object detection system of Fells is integrated in the wireless transfer source.
Regarding claim 12, Raedy and Fells teach the features of claim 1 as provided above and further:
12. The system of claim 1, further comprising an enclosure housing at least a portion of the wireless energy transfer source, wherein the foreign object debris detection system is integrated into the enclosure.
Note combination proposed above. Further note the foreign object detection system of Fells is integrated in the wireless transfer source and thus would be in the enclosure for the wireless transfer source of Raedy.
Regarding claim 13, Raedy and Fells teach the features of claim 1 as provided above and further:
13. The system of claim 1, wherein the wireless energy transfer source is configured to deliver a power of more than 3.3 kW to a wireless power receiving device.
Note combination proposed above. Examiners further find that 3.3kW or more is an example of the power transferred in a known car charger system. Furthermore, as provided above, Raedy is a car charger system and thus would either be capable of operating at 3.3kW or would be an obvious parameter for car charging.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Raedy and Fells as proposed for claims 3-5 teaches:
16. A method of detecting foreign object debris in a wireless energy transfer system, the method comprising:
Note combination of Raedy and Fells proposed above for claims 3-5. See discussion above for claim 1 applying Raedy and see also discussion of combination with Fells applied to claim 3 above.
performing a health and/or status check of a source resonator of the wireless energy transfer system;
Note combination of Raedy and Fells proposed above for claims 3-5.
verifying that no foreign object debris has moved onto or over the source resonator by positioning at least one magnetic field sensor within, and measuring changes of, the wireless energy transfer system wherein the at least one magnetic field sensor does not require a power source and does not produce its own energy;
Note combination of Raedy and Fells for claims 3-4.
positioning a vehicle over the source resonator;
Note combination of Raedy and Fells proposed above for claims 3-5. Further see FIG. 1 of Raedy above wherein a vehicle is placed over the wireless power transfer system.
verifying that no foreign object debris has moved onto or over the source resonator;
Note combination of Raedy and Fells proposed above for claims 3-5.
generating an oscillating magnetic field using the source resonator to transfer energy wirelessly to the vehicle to charge a battery of the vehicle; and
Note combination of Raedy and Fells proposed above for claims 3-5. See Raedy which is a charging system for vehicle.
verifying that no foreign object debris has moved onto or over the source resonator during the transfer of energy.
Note combination of Raedy and Fells proposed above for claims 3-5. Further see discussion of Raedy for claim 1.
VIII.B. Obviousness Rejection Applying IPR2024-00105 Final Decision in view of Branson
In the IPR2024-00105 Proceeding, claims 1-13 and 16 were found unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being obvious over Fells; claims 2-7, 9, 10 and 16 were found unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being obvious over Fells in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0299918 to Nigel Cook et al. (hereinafter “Cook”); claim 12 was found unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being obvious over Fells in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,075,433 to Makoto Ono et al. (hereinafter “Ono”), claim was found unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being obvious over Fells in view of Cook and Design Considerations for Inductively Coupled Power Transfer Systems, by Chwei-Sen Wang, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Auckland ,2004 (hereinafter “Wang”). Examiners find claims 1-13 and 16 in this reissue application are substantially the same in scope as to the claims as found unpatentable in the IPR2024-00105 Decision, except for the further recitations that the magnetic sensor “does not require a power source and does not produce its own energy.” As found by the PTAB these rejections, Fells teaches a Hall sensor, which as is well known in the art is a magnetic field sensor that does not produce its own magnetic field. However, Hall sensors do require power to operate. Nevertheless, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0002256 to Simon Branson et al. (hereinafter “Branson”) teaches “other sensors for magnetic fields like a coil, a fluxmeter, a HALL/MR/GMR-Effect sensor or similar--which generates an electrical output-signal correspondent to the electromagnetic field/[energy].” See Branson ¶0056. It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to use either a Hall, coil or MR sensor as the sensor for Fells. One having ordinary skill in the art would do so because first as noted in Fells, its magnetic sensor sense which outputs “a change in voltage in response to a change in magnetic field” (See Fells ¶0019), of which the MR and coil in Branson each provide the same output. Furthermore, as noted in the cited portion of Branson above, each of the Hall, coil and MR sensors are equivalent alternatives for providing a change in voltage output in response to a magnetic field. Finally, a coil does not require power for operation. Thus, modifying Fells to use a coil as taught in Branson would teach a magnetic field sensor that does not require a power source and does not produce its own magnetic field/energy.
In view of the forgoing, claims 1-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 on same basis of in view of the teachings of Fells, Cook, Ono and Wang as decided the IPR2024-00105 Final Decision, and in further view of the teachings of Branson.
IX. ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
While claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §251 as provided above, Examiners find they are nevertheless allowable over the prior art of record in this reissue application. Examiners find the prior art of record in this reissue application does not show or teach the further recitations of the different dimensions for the first and second conductive loops in the manner as recited in the claims and in combination with the other features of the claims.
X. PRIOR OR CONCURRENT PROCEEDINGS
Applicant is reminded of the obligation apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceedings in which the 184 Patent is or was involved, such as interferences or trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, reissues, reexaminations, or litigations and the results of such proceedings.
XI. INFORMATION MATERIAL TO PATENTABILITY
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. §1.56 to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
XII. CONCLUSION
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claims 1-16 are rejected.
The prior art made of record which is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is listed on the document titled ‘Notice of Reference Cited’ (“PTO-892”). Unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiners, all documents listed on the PTO-892 are cited in their entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to KENNETH WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2264. The Examiner can normally be reached on 8:30am - 5:00pm, Monday - Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Fischer, SPE Art Unit 3992, can be reached at (571) 272-6779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-9900.
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.
/KENNETH WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/JACOB C. COPPOLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ANDREW J. FISCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 Examiners also note that such an amendment will preserve the scope of claims 14 and 15 as patented in the 184 Patent.
Prosecution Insights