DETAILED ACTION
Continuation Reissue Application
The instant US Application No. 19/401,164 seeks reissue of US Patent No. 9,725,841 B2 and is a continuation reissue of US Application No. 18/213,772, now US Reissued Patent No. RE50,716 E, which is a continuation reissue of US Application No. 17/216,456, now US Reissued Patent No. RE49,611 E, which is a continuation reissue of US Application No. 16/192,555, now US Reissued Patent No. RE48,487 E.
Maintenance Fees
MPEP 2504 explains that, for maintenance fees due on or after January 16, 2018, separate maintenance fees must be paid in:
Each reissued patent in force on (i.e., issued before) the maintenance fee due date. This includes all reissued patents that replace the same original patent.
An original patent that is not surrendered because one or more applications for reissue of that original patent are still pending on the maintenance fee due date.
USPTO records show that maintenance fee payments are up to date for each of (i) original US Patent No. 9,725,841 B2, and (ii) US Reissued Patent Nos. RE48,487 E and RE49,611 E. No maintenance fee is yet due for US Reissued Patent No. RE50,716 E.
Status of Submission
The preliminary amendment filed on November 25, 2025 has been entered.
Claims Subject to Examination
New reissue claims 24-39 are subject to examination. Patent claims 1-23 have been canceled.
Claim Construction
During examination, the pending claims are normally interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (hereinafter, the “BRI standard”). That is, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2111 et seq.
An exception to the BRI standard occurs when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer. For this exception to apply, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. See MPEP 2111.01, subsection IV.
Another exception or special case occurs when a claim recites a means-plus-function limitation that must be interpreted in accordance with 35 USC 112 ¶ 6, or 35 USC 112(f). See MPEP 2181. According to the guidance provided by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), 35 USC 112 ¶ 6 applies when the claim term fails to recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, and/or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
Examiner’s Claim Construction
The following claim limitations are construed by the examiner to aid in examination:
Claim Limitation:
locking member (claim 24)
Examiner’s Construction:
a structural element in the shape of a hook or a ring, or an L-shaped structural element, or a straight structural element formed with an aperture, and art-recognized equivalents thereof
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “member” is a generic placeholder for structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claims do not recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked.
The disclosure states that the locking member 41 may be formed in various shapes such as a shape of a hook, ring, etc. Fig. 7 shows what appears to be an L-shaped locking member (generally hook-shaped), and Fig. 10 shows what appears to be a straight locking member formed with an aperture.
Claim Limitation:
mounting unit (claim 24) including first mounting unit (claim 24)
Examiner’s Construction:
a structural element having coupling structure for coupling to another structural element, and art-recognized equivalents thereof
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “unit” is a generic placeholder for structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claims do not recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked.
The disclosure describes an upper mounting unit 92 having a coupling hole 98, which is one half of a snap-fit coupling between the upper mounting unit 92 and a lower mounting unit 94. Fig. 6 shows the upper mounting unit 92 as being generally in the form of a cover-like element having a downwardly extending part provided with the coupling hole 98.
Claim Limitation:
mounting unit (claim 24) including second mounting unit (claim 24)
Examiner’s Construction:
a structural element having coupling structure for coupling to another structural element, and art-recognized equivalents thereof
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “unit” is a generic placeholder for structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claims do not recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked.
The disclosure describes a lower mounting unit 94 having: (i) a locking protrusion 99, which is one half of a snap-fit coupling between the lower mounting unit 94 and an upper mounting unit 92; and (ii) a coupling part 942 that is inserted into and fastened to a coupling part of a locking switch 80. Fig. 6 shows the lower mounting unit 94 as being generally in the form of a bracket-like element having the locking protrusion 99 and the coupling part 942 extending therefrom.
Claim Limitation:
sliding member (claim 27)
Examiner’s Construction:
a structural element in the form of a bar or plate that slides into engagement with a locking member to restrain the locking member, and art-recognized equivalents thereof
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “member” is a generic placeholder for structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claims do not recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked.
The disclosure states that the sliding member 81 slides forward into the locking member 41 to restrain the locking member 41, thereby latching the door 40 when the door is closed. The disclosure further states that, even though the shape of the sliding member 81 is not limited, the sliding member 81 may have upper and lower surfaces that are wider than side surfaces thereof. Figs. 6-7 show what appears to be sliding member 81 in the form of a flat bar or plate.
Claim Limitation:
(locking switch) coupling part (claim 34)
Examiner’s Construction:
a part of a structural element for coupling to another structural element, the part being in the form of a post, and art-recognized equivalents thereof
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “part” is a generic placeholder for structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claims do not recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked.
The disclosure states that the locking switch coupling part 942 has a screw hole formed at one end thereof so that a screw can couple the coupling part 942 to a mounting unit coupling part 83 of a locking switch 80 after the coupling part 942 is inserted into the coupling part 83. Fig. 6 appears to show the coupling part 942 as being in the form of a post extending outwardly from the lower mounting unit 94.
Claim Limitation:
(mounting unit) coupling part (claim 34)
Examiner’s Construction:
a part of a structural element for coupling to another structural element, the part being of unspecified form, and art-recognized equivalents thereof
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “part” is a generic placeholder for structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claims do not recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked.
The disclosure states that the locking switch coupling part 942 has a screw hole formed at one end thereof so that a screw can couple the coupling part 942 to a mounting unit coupling part 83 of a locking switch 80 after the coupling part 942 is inserted into the coupling part 83. Fig. 6 appears to show the coupling part 83 as some type of bracket-like element extending from the main body 82 of the locking switch 82. However, the specification and the drawings fail to clearly establish either (i) the specific form of the coupling part 83, or (ii) how the coupling part 83 is structured such that the coupling part 942 can be inserted into the coupling part 83.
Claim Limitation:
closing member (claim 37)
Examiner’s Construction:
a structural element of unspecified form that forces another structural element in a certain direction, and art-recognized equivalents thereof
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “member” is a generic placeholder for structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claims do not recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked.
The disclosure states that the closing member 97 forces the cover part 961 upward when the door 40 is open to prevent, for example, debris from falling through the accommodation hole 91. Fig. 6 appears to show the closing member 97 as some type of structural element having an arm or limb extending from the hinge shaft 962. However, the specification and the drawings fail to clearly establish either (i) the specific form of the closing member 97, or (ii) how the closing member 97 is structured and interrelated with the flip cover 96 so as to force the cover part 961 upward when the door 40 is open.
The skilled artisan would appreciate that a variety of springs constitute art-recognized equivalents of the claimed “closing member”.
Objection to Amendments – Formalities
The specification amendments filed on November 25, 2025 are objected to because:
In the 3rd line of the rewritten paragraph, “2023 (the ‘772 Application)” should read “2023, now U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE50,716 (the ‘716 Patent)”.
In the 5th line of the rewritten paragraph, “RE49,611)” should read “RE49,611”.
In the 5th line of the rewritten paragraph “Reissue Patent” should read “Reissued Patent”.
In the 6th line of the rewritten paragraph, “2018 (now U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE48,847)” should read “2018, now U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE48,847”.
In the 7th line of the rewritten paragraph, “the ‘772 Application” should read “the ‘716 Patent”.
Original Disclosure – Definition
The instant application seeks reissue of US Patent No. 9,725,841 B2, which issued from US Application No. 14/959,583. The “original disclosure” is the disclosure of Application No. 14/959,583 as filed on December 4, 2015. Any subject matter added to the disclosure during either the prosecution of the instant reissue application or the earlier-concluded prosecution of Application No. 14/959,583 does not constitute part of the “original disclosure”.
Prohibition of New Matter
35 USC 132(a) prohibits any amendment that introduces new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
35 USC 251(a) prohibits the introduction of new matter into the application for reissue.
Objection to Amendments – New Matter
The amendment filed on November 25, 2025 is objected to under 35 USC 132(a) and 35 USC 251(a) because it improperly introduces new matter.
The first paragraph of the patent specification is amended to incorporate by reference the disclosures of all of US Patent Nos. 9,725,841 B2, RE50,716 E, RE49,611 E and RE48,487 E and Korean Patent Application No. 10-2014-0173203. However, the original disclosure did not incorporate by reference the disclosures of all of US Patent Nos. 9,725,841 B2, RE50,716 E, RE49,611 E and RE48,487 E. Thus, the new incorporation by reference constitutes new matter.
New claim 27 recites “the locking switch includes a sliding member movable to interfere with the locking member when inserted into the frame” (ll. 4-5). The disclosure states that the sliding member 81 slides forward into the locking member 41 to restrain the locking member 41, thereby latching the door 40 when the door is closed. There is no support in the original disclosure for the “to interfere with” claim limitation, which is broader in scope than the disclosure of a sliding member that restrains the locking member.
New claim 28 recites “the sliding member is provided to be reciprocally movable in a front to back direction.” The disclosure states that the sliding member 81 slides forward into the locking member 41 to restrain the locking member 41, thereby latching the door 40 when the door is closed. There is no support in the original disclosure for the “reciprocally movable in a front to back direction” claim limitation, which is broader/different in scope than the disclosure of a sliding member that slides forward.
New claim 29 recites “wherein the sliding member is provided to move based on a signal detected by the door open/close detection sensor” (ll. 3-4). The disclosure states that the washing machine may include a door open/close detection sensor (not shown) such that the sliding member moves in accordance with a door open/close detection signal. There is no support in the original disclosure for “a signal detected by” the door open/close detection sensor. Based on conventional practice, it is assumed that the sensor would produce some type of signal (not detect a signal).
New claim 31 recites “wherein the locking member is configured to accommodate an end of the sliding member.” The disclosure states that the locking member 41 may be formed in various shapes such as a shape of a hook, ring, etc. Fig. 7 shows what appears to be an L-shaped locking member (generally hook-shaped), and Fig. 10 shows what appears to be a straight locking member formed with an aperture. Further, the disclosure states that the sliding member 81 slides forward into the locking member 41 to restrain the locking member 41, thereby latching the door 40 when the door is closed. There is no support in the original disclosure for the “configured to accommodate an end of the sliding member” claim limitation, which is broader/different in scope than the disclosure of a locking member formed in various shapes and a sliding member that slides forward into the locking member.
New claim 37 recites “a closing member provided to elastically bias the cover part” (l. 5). The disclosure states that the closing member 97 forces the cover part 961 upward when the door 40 is open to prevent, for example, debris from falling through the accommodation hole 91. There is no support in the original disclosure for the closing member functioning “to elastically bias” the cover part.
New claim 38 recites “wherein the flip cover is provided to open and close the accommodation hole in coordination with a signal detected by the door open/close detection sensor” (ll. 3-4). The disclosure states that the washing machine may include a door open/close detection sensor (not shown) such that the flip cover may be opened and closed in accordance with a signal from a door open/close detection sensor. There is no support in the original disclosure for “a signal detected by” the door open/close detection sensor. Based on conventional practice, it is assumed that the sensor would produce some type of signal (not detect a signal).
New claim 39 recites “wherein: the door is rotatably coupled to an upper portion of the frame…” The original disclosure states that the door 40 is installed at the upper portion of the cabinet 100, (ii) the cabinet 100 includes an upper frame 110 and a lower frame 130, (iii) the washing machine 1 includes the door 40 at the upper frame 110, and (iv) the door opens and closes to uncover and cover the opening 120a of the upper frame 110. There is no support in the original disclosure for the door being rotatably coupled to “an upper portion of the frame”.
New claim 39 recites “wherein…the locking member is formed to a lower portion of the door.” The disclosure states that the door 40 includes the locking member 41. There is no disclosure as to the manner in which the locking member is “formed” and, thus, there is no support in the original disclosure for the “formed to a lower portion of the door” limitation.
For these reasons, the amendment filed on November 25, 2025 improperly introduces new matter. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in response to this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 251:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
(b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS.— The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
(c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.— The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest.
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS.—No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
GROUND 1: Claims 27-31 and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 because they introduce new matter into the application for reissue. The new matter recited in the claims is explained in detail above. Claim 30 is included because of its dependency.
GROUND 2: Claims 24-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the earlier-concluded reexamination proceeding.
During the earlier-concluded examination of US Application No. 14/959,583 (which issued as US Patent No. 9,725,841 B2), applicant responded to the previous examiner’s prior art rejections by amending claim 1 to recite both “wherein the opening flange comprises a through-hole and a mounting part around the through-hole” and “wherein the door locking device comprises a locking switch configured to restrain the locking member, and a mounting unit in which a first side is coupled to the mounting part, and a second side is coupled to the locking switch” and arguing that these limitations were not taught by the prior art.1 Thus, the limitations “wherein the opening flange comprises a through-hole and a mounting part around the through-hole” and “wherein the door locking device comprises a locking switch configured to restrain the locking member, and a mounting unit in which a first side is coupled to the mounting part, and a second side is coupled to the locking switch” constitute a surrender-generating limitations, i.e., limitations added to the patent claims and relied upon by applicant to secure allowance.
Omission of the surrender-generating limitation “wherein the opening flange comprises a through-hole and a mounting part around the through-hole” from new reissue claims 24-39 constitutes impermissible recapture. While reissue claim 24 recites a mounting part on the frame of a cabinet, it does not retain the surrender-generating limitation in broadened form because (i) it does not require an opening flange comprising a through-hole, and (ii) it does not define the mounting part in any way relative to an opening flange or a through-hole of such opening flange. Further, even if reissue claim 24 is considered to retain the surrender-generating limitation in broadened form, it does not avoid recapture because the “mounting part” limitation of reissue claim 24 was well known in the prior art, as established by GROUNDS 6 and 7 below.
Reissue claims 24-39 do not avoid recapture based on overlooked aspects because they are not directed to a separate invention/embodiment/species that was never presented in the original application. Rather, claims 24-39 are directed to a door locking device for a washing machine that was covered by the claims (i) as originally filed in Application No. 14/959,583, and (ii) as issued in US Patent No. 9,725,841 B2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation 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.
GROUND 3: Claims 27-31 and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement because these claims recite new matter. See the explanation above. Claim 30 is included because of its dependency.
GROUND 4: Claims 29, 34 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The written description requirement serves both to satisfy applicant’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could theoretically construct his/her own version of the claimed invention. Rather, applicant bears the burden of setting forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Thus, the written description requirement requires applicant to go beyond a discussion of mere concepts and suggestions. It is not sufficient to merely outline desired results that the claimed invention is expected to achieve. Rather, the specification must explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. While subject matter that is conventional or well known in the art need not be described in detail, the specification must provide a complete description of each of the essential features recited in the claims which cause the claimed invention to achieve the desired results.
New claim 29 recites “a door open/close detection sensor, wherein the sliding member is provided to move based on a signal detected by the door open/close detection sensor.” The disclosure states that (i) the washing machine may include a door open/close detection sensor (not shown) such that the sliding member moves in accordance with a door open/close detection signal, (ii) the door open/close detection sensor detects rotation of a rotary shaft of the door, (iii) the open/close detection sensor may be any sensor appropriate for such purposes, (iv) the door open/close detection sensor may be able to notify a control unit (not shown) that the opening is not properly covered by the door such that the sliding member may be prevented from latching the door, and (v) the control unit may be any processing unit appropriate for such purposes. However, neither the door open/close detection sensor nor the control unit are illustrated in the drawings. Further, the specification is silent as to (i) the structure required (e.g., some form of actuator) that causes the sliding member to move, (ii) the manner in which a signal produced by the door open/close detection sensor is processed (presumably by the control unit mentioned in the specification, but not explained as such in the specification), and (iii) the manner in which the signal produced by the sensor is converted into controlled motion of the sliding member (via some type of required actuator not mentioned in the specification). Thus, the disclosure fails to explain how such an embodiment would be structured and how it would function. Absent a complete description of these essential features, the written description fails to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed.
New claim 34 recites “the second mounting unit includes a locking switch coupling part, and the locking switch includes a mounting unit coupling part into which the locking switch coupling part is inserted.” As explained in the Examiner’s Claim Construction, Fig. 6 appears to show the coupling part 83 as some type of bracket-like element extending from the main body 82 of the locking switch 82. However, the specification and the drawings fail to clearly establish either (i) the specific form of the coupling part 83, or (ii) how the coupling part 83 is structured such that the coupling part 942 can be inserted into the coupling part 83. Thus, the disclosure fails to explain how the claimed second mounting unit would be structured and how it would function. Absent a complete description of these essential features, the written description fails to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed.
New claim 38 recites “a door open/close detection sensor, wherein the flip cover is provided to open and close the accommodation hole in coordination with a signal detected by the door open/close detection sensor.” The disclosure states that (i) the washing machine may include a door open/close detection sensor (not shown) s such that the flip cover may be opened and closed in accordance with a signal from a door open/close detection sensor, (ii) the door open/close detection sensor detects rotation of a rotary shaft of the door, (iii) the open/close detection sensor may be any sensor appropriate for such purposes, (iv) the door open/close detection sensor may be able to notify a control unit (not shown) that the opening is not properly covered by the door such that the cover part of the flip cover may not open, and (v) the control unit may be any processing unit appropriate for such purposes. However, neither the door open/close detection sensor nor the control unit are illustrated in the drawings. Further, the specification is silent as to (i) the structure required (e.g., some form of actuator) that controls the opened and closed states of the flip cover, (ii) the manner in which a signal produced by the door open/close detection sensor is processed (presumably by the control unit mentioned in the specification, but not explained as such in the specification), and (iii) the manner in which the signal produced by the sensor is converted into control of the opened and closed states of the flip cover (via some type of required actuator not mentioned in the specification). In addition, the specification fails to explain whether the required actuator functions to move the flip cover between the opened and closed states, or whether it functions to prevent movement of the flip cover to one or both of the opened and closed states. Thus, the disclosure fails to explain how such an embodiment would be structured and how it would function. Absent a complete description of these essential features, the written description fails to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
GROUND 5: Claims 24-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 24 recites “A door locking device of a washing machine for locking a door to open and close an opening of a frame for a cabinet” (ll. 1-2). This subject matter is indefinite because “locking a door” does not cause the door to “open and close an opening”. When the door is locked, the opening is not open.
Claim 24 recites “a mounting unit provided to mount the locking switch to the frame…” (l. 5) and further recites “wherein the mounting unit includes: a first mounting unit disposed on a portion of the frame; and a second mounting unit coupled to the first mounting unit such that the portion of the frame is disposed between the first mounting unit and the second mounting unit” (ll. 8-11). Thus, the claim requires that “a mounting unit” comprises both “a first mounting unit” and “a second mounting unit”. Defining a singular “mounting unit” as comprising plural mounting units contradicts the plain and ordinary meaning of the word “unit” (which refers to an individual thing). Further, the recitation of a broad limitation (“a mounting unit”) together with a narrow limitation (“a first mounting unit…and a second mounting unit…”) that falls within the broad limitation (in the same claim) creates a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For these reasons, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 29 recites “wherein the sliding member is provided to move based on a signal detected by the door open/close detection sensor” (ll. 3-4). This subject matter is indefinite because it fails to conform to the description of the invention in the specification, and it contradicts the conventional operation of a sensor. See the further explanation above.
Claim 31 recites “wherein the locking member is configured to accommodate an end of the sliding member.” The disclosure states that the locking member 41 may be formed in various shapes such as a shape of a hook, ring, etc. Fig. 7 shows what appears to be an L-shaped locking member (generally hook-shaped), and Fig. 10 shows what appears to be a straight locking member formed with an aperture. Further, the disclosure states that the sliding member 81 slides forward into the locking member 41 to restrain the locking member 41, thereby latching the door 40 when the door is closed. However, the specification fails to describe the locking member as being “configured to accommodate an end of” the sliding member. Since the “configured to accommodate an end of” limitation is not defined in any way in the supporting disclosure, and since this limitation is subject to different interpretations due to its broad scope, the scope of this limitation cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty, i.e., it is impossible to ascertain with a reasonable degree of certainty what subject matter is encompassed by this limitation and what subject matter is excluded therefrom.
Claim 32 recites “wherein the mounting unit includes an accommodation hole provided corresponding to the locking member.” This subject matter is indefinite because:
The term “the mounting unit” is unclear since claim 24 recites more than one mounting unit. Does the term in claim 32 refer to both the first mounting unit and the second mounting unit, or to just one of the first and second mounting units?
The claim requires the accommodation hole to be “provided”, but the claim fails to define where or on what structure the hole is provided.
Since the phrase “provided corresponding to” is unconventional and does not conform to ordinary usage, it’s meaning is unclear.
Claim 34 recites “the second mounting unit includes a locking switch coupling part, and the locking switch includes a mounting unit coupling part into which the locking switch coupling part is inserted.” As explained in the Examiner’s Claim Construction, the specification and the drawings fail to clearly establish either (i) the specific form of the coupling part 83, or (ii) how the coupling part 83 is structured such that the coupling part 942 can be inserted into the coupling part 83. Since the disclosure fails to clearly identify the corresponding structure for this claim limitation that invokes 35 USC 112(f), the claim is indefinite.
Claim 37 recites “a closing member provided to elastically bias the cover part” (l. 5). As explained in the Examiner’s Claim Construction, the specification and the drawings fail to clearly establish either (i) the specific form of the closing member 97, or (ii) how the closing member 97 is structured and interrelated with the flip cover 96 so as to force the cover part 961 upward when the door 40 is open. Since the disclosure fails to clearly identify the corresponding structure for this claim limitation that invokes 35 USC 112(f), the claim is indefinite.
Claim 38 recites “wherein the flip cover is provided to open and close the accommodation hole in coordination with a signal detected by the door open/close detection sensor” (ll. 3-4). This subject matter is indefinite because it fails to conform to the description of the invention in the specification, and it contradicts the conventional operation of a sensor. See the further explanation above.
Claim 39 recites “wherein: the door is rotatably coupled to an upper portion of the frame, and the locking member is formed to a lower portion of the door.” This subject matter is indefinite because:
It fails to conform to the description of the invention in the specification. See the further explanation above.
Since the phrase “is formed to” is unconventional and does not conform to ordinary usage, it’s meaning is unclear.
Listing of Prior Art
The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference used for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Brown”
US Publication No. 2014/0042881 A1
“Choi et al.”
KR Publication No. 10-2007-0024117 A (with translation)
“Hapke et al.”
US Patent No. 5,520,424
“Hwang”
US Publication No. 2004/0111916 A1
“Lee et al. ‘421”
KR Publication No. 10-2014-0064421 A (with translation)
“Lee et al. ‘487”
US Reissued Patent No. RE48,487 E
“Lee et al. ‘611”
US Reissued Patent No. RE49,611 E
“Lee et al. ‘716”
US Reissued Patent No. RE50,716 E
“Lafrenz”
US Publication No. 2004/0195844 A1
“Paulson”
US Patent No. 4,365,830
“Stanitz”
US Patent No. 2,618,282
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
GROUND 6: Claims 24-28, 30-33, 35 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Brown.
Brown discloses a door locking device 44 of a washing machine 10 for locking a door 40 that (i) opens and closes an opening of a frame of a cabinet 12, and (ii) is rotatably coupled to an upper portion of the frame of the cabinet. See Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0012-0013, 0020-0021. The door locking device 44 comprises:
A locking member 48 that (i) extends from a lower portion of the door 40, and (ii) is configured to be inserted into the frame of the cabinet 12 while the door 40 closes the opening of the frame. See Figs. 2-5; ¶¶ 0022-0025.
A locking switch in the form of a sliding member 50 that is (i) provided inside the frame of the cabinet 12 so as not to protrude or be exposed to the outside of the frame of the cabinet 12, (ii) reciprocally movable in a front to back direction, and (iii) configured to restrain the locking member 48 when the locking member 48 is inserted into the frame of the cabinet. See Figs. 2-5; ¶¶ 0021-0022, 0025.
A mounting assembly for mounting the sliding member 50 to the frame of the cabinet 12, the mounting assembly comprising (i) a first mounting unit 54 defining a first side of the mounting assembly that is disposed on and coupled to a mounting part (see Figs. 2-5, where the mounting part surrounds a through-hole in the cabinet 12 through which the locking 48 is inserted) on the frame of the cabinet 12, and (ii) a second mounting unit 46 defining a second side of the mounting assembly that is coupled to the sliding member 50, wherein the second mounting unit 46 is coupled to the first mounting unit 54 (via screws 92) such that the mounting part on the frame of the cabinet 12 is disposed between the first mounting unit 54 and the second mounting unit 46. See Figs. 2-5; ¶¶ 0022-0023, 0026-0027.
With respect to claim 30, the sliding member 50 is positioned rear of the locking member 48 when the locking member 48 is inserted into the frame of the cabinet 12, and the sliding member 50 slides forward toward the locking member 48. See Figs. 2-5; ¶¶ 0021-0022, 0025.
With respect to claim 31, the locking member 48 is configured to accommodate an end of the sliding member 50 that engages the locking member 48, as broadly claimed. See Figs. 2-5.
With respect to claims 32 and 35, the first mounting unit 54 includes an accommodation hole 56 that receives the locking member 48 so as to guide the door 40. See Figs. 2-5; ¶¶ 0023, 0027.
GROUND 7: Claims 24-27, 32, 33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al.
Choi et al. discloses a door locking device (see Figs. 1-4) of a washing machine (see Fig. 1) for locking a door 20 that opens and closes an opening 12 of a frame 11 of a cabinet 10. See Fig. 1; ¶¶ 9-11.2 The door locking device comprises:
A locking member 22 that (i) extends from a portion of the door 20, and (ii) is configured to be inserted into the frame 11 while the door 20 closes the opening 12. See Figs. 1-2 and 4; ¶¶ 11-12.
A locking switch 50 that (i) includes a sliding member 52, (ii) is provided inside the frame 11 so as not to protrude or be exposed to the outside of the frame 11, (iii) is movable in opposite directions (shown biased in one direction by a spring), and (iv) is configured to restrain the locking member 22 when the locking member 22 is inserted into the frame 11. See Figs. 2-4; ¶¶ 11-13.
A mounting assembly for mounting the locking switch 50 to the frame 11, the mounting assembly comprising (i) a first mounting unit 30 defining a first side of the mounting assembly that is disposed on and coupled to a mounting part (see Figs. 1-4, where the mounting part surrounds a through-hole 15 in the frame 11 through which the locking member 22 is inserted) on the frame 11, and (ii) a second mounting unit (see Fig. 3, where the second mounting unit is a mounting bracket having screw holes 54 and a through-hole 52 through which the locking member 22 is inserted) defining a second side of the mounting assembly that is coupled to the locking switch 50, wherein the second mounting unit (see Fig. 3) is coupled to the first mounting unit 30 (via screws 60) such that the mounting part on the frame 11 is disposed between the first mounting unit 30 and the second mounting unit. See Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 11-13.
With respect to claims 32 and 35, the first mounting unit 30 includes an accommodation hole 38 that receives the locking member 22 so as to guide the door 20. See Figs. 2-4; ¶¶ 11-12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
GROUND 8: Claims 29, 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Brown in view of Lee et al. ‘421.
See the detailed discussion of Brown in GROUND 6. Brown lacks the door open/close detection sensor required by claim 29 and the flip cover required by claims 36 and 37.
Lee et al. ‘421 teaches a door locking device 30 of a washing machine that comprises:
A mounting unit 14 including a flip cover 60 provided to open and close an accommodation hole 50 through which a door locking member 32 is inserted, wherein the flip cover 60 includes (i) a cover part 62 to cover the accommodation hole 50, (ii) a hinge shaft 63 to rotate the cover part 62, and (iii) a closing member 64 provided to elastically bias the cover part 62. See Figs. 4-7; ¶¶ 0015-0016, 0023-0027, 0033-0047.3
A door open/close detection sensor 15, wherein a sliding member 34 of the door locking device is provided to move based on a signal detected by the door open/close detection sensor 15. See Figs. 3-5; ¶¶ 0024, 0026, 0028-0032.
From the teachings of Lee et al. ‘421, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brown to include (i) the door open/close detection sensor required by claim 29 in order to increase convenience and safety through automatic operation of the door locking device, and (ii) the flip cover required by claims 36 and 37 in order to seal/close the opening in the frame when the door is open so that foreign/unwanted substances are prevented from entering the opening. With respect to claim 36, it would have been obvious to mount the flip cover taught by Lee et al. ‘421 to the second mounting unit of Brown in order to position the flip cover in the desired location below the hole through which the locking member is inserted.
GROUND 9: Claims 29, 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Choi et al. in view of Lee et al. ‘421.
See the detailed discussion of Choi et al. in GROUND 7. Choi et al. lacks the door open/close detection sensor required by claim 29 and the flip cover required by claims 36 and 37.
See the explanation of Lee et al. ‘421 in GROUND 8. From the teachings of Lee et al. ‘421, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Choi et al. to include (i) the door open/close detection sensor required by claim 29 in order to increase convenience and safety through automatic operation of the door locking device, and (ii) the flip cover required by claims 36 and 37 in order to seal/close the opening in the frame when the door is open so that foreign/unwanted substances are prevented from entering the opening. With respect to claim 36, it would have been obvious to mount the flip cover taught by Lee et al. ‘421 to the second mounting unit of Choi et al. in order to position the flip cover in the desired location behind the hole through which the locking member is inserted.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
GROUND 10: Claims 24-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 19-33 of Lee et al. ‘487 (U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE48,487 E).
Claims 24-39 of the instant application are directed to essentially the same washing machine door locking device that is required by claims 1-10 and 19-33 of Lee et al. ‘487 in combination with other components of the washing machine. While claims 24-39 of the instant application omit some limitations required by claims 1-10 and 19-33 of Lee et al. ‘487, the omission of limitations with the consequent loss of their functions is recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, while claims 24-39 of the instant application may present some limitations in a different order than they are presented in claims 1-10 and 19-33 of Lee et al. ‘487, a modification involving a mere rearrangement of the same limitations is recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, claims 24-39 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from claims 1-10 and 19-33 of Lee et al. ‘487.
GROUND 11: Claims 24-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 24-35 of Lee et al. ‘611 (U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE49,611 E).
Claims 24-39 of the instant application are directed to essentially the same washing machine door locking device that is required by claims 24-35 of Lee et al. ‘611 in combination with other components of the washing machine. While claims 24-39 of the instant application omit some limitations required by claims 24-35 of Lee et al. ‘611, the omission of limitations with the consequent loss of their functions is recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, while claims 24-39 of the instant application may present some limitations in a different order than they are presented in claims 24-35 of Lee et al. ‘611, a modification involving a mere rearrangement of the same limitations is recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, claims 24-39 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from claims 24-35 of Lee et al. ‘611.
GROUND 12: Claims 24-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 24-35 of Lee et al. ‘716 (U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE50,716 E).
Claims 24-39 of the instant application are directed to essentially the same washing machine door locking device that is required by claims 24-35 of Lee et al. ‘716. While claims 24-39 of the instant application omit some limitations required by claims 24-35 of Lee et al. ‘716, the omission of limitations with the consequent loss of their functions is recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, while claims 24-39 of the instant application may present some limitations in a different order than they are presented in claims 24-35 of Lee et al. ‘716, a modification involving a mere rearrangement of the same limitations is recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, claims 24-39 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from claims 24-35 of Lee et al. ‘716.
Overcoming Double Patenting Rejection
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure but is not relied upon to reject any claim.
Lafrenz teaches a door lock for a washing machine that comprises a first mounting unit 22 and a second mounting unit 32.
Hapke et al. teaches a door lock for a washing machine that comprises a first mounting unit 11 and a second mounting unit 12. Further the second mounting unit 12 is secured to a wall (frame) 33 by screws that can be considered to constitute mounting units.
Stanitz teaches a door lock for a washing machine that comprises a first mounting unit 41, a second mounting unit 43 and a third mounting unit 48.
Hwang teaches a door lock for a washing machine that comprises a first mounting unit 81 and a second mounting unit 87.
Paulson teaches a door lock for a washing machine that comprises a first mounting unit 14 and a second mounting unit (see Figs. 3-8).
Specification
The specification is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 608.01(o). The specification fails to describe the following claimed subject matter:
The locking switch is provided so as not to protrude to the outside of the frame (claim 25).
The locking switch is provided so as not to be exposed to the outside of the frame (claim 26).
The locking switch is positioned rear of the locking member inserted into the frame (claim 30).
The specification is objected to because:
At col. 3, l. 56, “line A-A’ illustrated” should read “line 7-7 illustrated” or “line VII-VII illustrated” in order to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
At col. 3, l. 66, “along the line A-A’ illustrated in FIG. 2” is inaccurate. Since Fig. 10 shows an alternative embodiment (i.e., an alternative to that of Fig. 7), Figs. 7 and 10 cannot both be cross-sectional views taken along the same line in Fig. 2.
At col. 4, l. 9, “along the line A-A’ illustrated in FIG. 2” is inaccurate. Since Fig. 13 shows an alternative embodiment (i.e., an alternative to that of Fig. 7), Figs. 7 and 13 cannot both be cross-sectional views taken along the same line in Fig. 2. Further, Fig. 13 does not show a cross section along line A-A’ in Fig. 2 because the door 40 is not shown in Fig. 13.
At col. 4, l. 12, “along the line A-A’ illustrated in FIG. 2” is improper because it does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3). If the section line labeled A-A’ in FIG. 2 corresponds to the cross section shown in Fig. 7, then it cannot also be described as showing the cross section shown in Fig. 14 and still comply with 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
At col. 4, l. 15, “line B-B’ illustrated” should read “line 15-15 illustrated” or “line XV-XV illustrated” in order to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
At col. 6, l. 31, “line A-A’ illustrated” should read “line 7-7 illustrated” or “line VII-VII illustrated”.
At col. 6, ll. 44-47, “The locking switch 80 coupled to the lower unit 94 may be mounted on a lower portion of the opening flange 120 by coupling between the upper unit 92 and the lower unit 94” is confusing and inaccurate because the locking switch 80 does not couple between the upper and lower units 92, 94.
At col. 8, l. 1, “along the line A-A’ illustrated in FIG. 2” is inaccurate. See explanation above.
At col. 8, ll. 17-20, “The locking switch 180 that couples to the mounting unit 190 may be mounted, for example, on the lower portion of the opening flange 120 by coupling between the mounting unit 190 and the opening flange 120” is confusing and inaccurate because the locking switch 180 does not couple between the mounting unit 190 and the opening flange 120.
At col. 9, l. 15, “along the line A-A’ illustrated in FIG. 2” is inaccurate. See explanation above.
At col. 10, ll. 52-53, “along the line A-A’ illustrated in FIG. 2” is improper. See explanation above.
At col. 10, l. 15, “line B-B’ in” should read “line 15-15 in” or “line XV-XV in”.
At col. 10, l. 59, “tilted” is inconsistent with and contradictory to “flat” at col. 6, ll. 4 and 10.
At col. 10, l. 60, “As discussed with respect to at least FIGS. 2-4” is inaccurate because the paragraph that follows contains the first mention of the flanges 122, 124, 126.
In col. 11, the use of “the other side” (l. 66) along with the use of “the other side” (l. 67) is confusing and inaccurate. The “other side” referred to at line 66 is a different side than the “other side” referred to at line 67.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for failing to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features listed below must be shown in the drawings or canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
A door open/close detection sensor (claims 29 and 38).
Structure/system that causes the sliding member to move based on a signal detected by the door open/close detection sensor (claim 29).
A mounting unit coupling part into which the locking switch coupling part is inserted (claim 34). While Fig. 6 shows parts described in the specification as a locking switch coupling part and a mounting unit coupling part, the drawings do not show a locking switch coupling part inserted into a mounting unit coupling part.
Structure/system that causes the flip cover to open and close the accommodation hole in coordination with a signal detected by the door open/close detection sensor (claim 38).
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 2 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3). The plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view, and should have arrows to indicate the direction of sight. Thus, the section line labeled A-A’ should be labeled 7-7 (or VII-VII), and the section line labeled B-B’ should be labeled 15-15 (or XV-XV).
Fig. 9 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4). The same part of an invention appearing in more than one view of the drawing must always be designated by the same reference character, and the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts. Reference number 961 is used in Fig. 9 to designate a cover part that differs structurally from the cover part designated by reference number 961 in Figs. 6 and 12.
Fig. 10 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4). Reference number 41 is used in Fig. 10 to designate a locking member that differs structurally from the locking member designated by reference number 41 in Fig. 7.
Fig. 10 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(q). Lead lines are those lines between the reference characters and the details referred to. They must originate in the immediate proximity of the reference character and extend to the feature indicated. In Fig. 10, the lead line for reference number 194 is not directed to the horizontal surface of the coupling flange 195. See Fig. 9. Rather, in Fig. 10, the lead line for reference number 194 appears to be directed to a circumferential wall that surrounds the locking switch. 180
Fig. 14 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l). All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. Fig. 14 lacks the required line quality and reproducibility.
In Fig. 14, the angle designated by reference character FA is not clearly visible. Further, Fig. 14 does not conform to the written description because it does not show the angle FA as an angle between the front inclined surface 112a and the reference ground surface G. See col. 11, ll. 52-54.
They do not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5). Reference characters not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings. Reference characters mentioned in the description must appear in the drawings. Thus, reference characters h1 and h2 mentioned at col. 12, ll. 17, 21 and 22 must be shown in the drawings or omitted from the specification.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Amendments in Reissue Applications
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification, claims or drawings must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g).
Failure to fully comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g) will generally result in a notification to applicant that an amendment before final rejection is not completely responsive. Such an amendment after final rejection will not be entered.
Disclosure Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the patent for which reissue is sought is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this reissue application should be directed:
By Patent Center4: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail5 to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928.
/PETER C ENGLISH/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/Laura Davison/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/ SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 See the amendment and arguments filed on March 17, 2017.
2 All citations are to the English translation.
3 All citations are to the English translation.
4 Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
5 Mail Stop REISSUE should only be used for the initial filing of reissue applications, and should not be used for any subsequently filed correspondence in reissue applications. See MPEP 1410.
Prosecution Insights