vs! “111%
`\.\_:
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`wwwusptogov
`
`
`
`
`
`15/328,359
`
`01/23/2017
`
`MASANORI KOBAYASHI
`
`20759.0019USWO
`
`8005
`
`53148
`7590
`09/20/2018
`HAMRE, SCHUMANN,MUELLER&LARSONP.C. —
`45 South Seventh Street
`TANENBAUM, TZVI SAMUEL
`Suite 2700
`
`3744
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`09/20/2018
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/0r attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`PTOMail @hsml.com
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 15/328,359 KOBAYASHI ET AL.
`
`
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Art Unit
`Examiner
`Office Action Summary
`
`
`STEVE TAN ENBAUM $2215 3744
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136( a).
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`
`1)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 1/23/2017.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|ZI This action is non-final.
`2a)|:l This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:| Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)IZI Claim(s) 1-12is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`is/are allowed.
`6)I:I Claim(s)
`7)|Z| Claim(s)_1-12 is/are rejected.
`8)|:I Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)I:I Claim((s)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`hit
`I/lWWWlISMO. ovI’ atentS/init events/
`
`
`
`iindex.‘s or send an inquiry to PPI-iieedback{®usgtc.00v.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)|Xl The drawing(s) filed on 1/23/2017is/are: a)I:I accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)IXI Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)IZl All
`
`b)|:l Some” c)I:l None of the:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`SIXI Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`4) m Other' for' Kita and translation
`2) E Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20180827
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/328,359
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Drawings
`
`2.
`
`Figures 14-15 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because
`
`only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in
`
`compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 (d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid
`
`abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled
`
`“Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct
`
`any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the
`
`applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office
`
`action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
`
`(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. — An element in a claim for a combination may be
`expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of
`structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the
`corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents
`thereof.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`
`An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing
`a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and
`such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts
`described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/328,359
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language
`
`creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance
`
`with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that
`
`35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when
`
`the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to
`
`entirely perform the recited function.
`
`Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable
`
`presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
`
`(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim
`
`element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts
`
`to perform that function.
`
`Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are
`
`presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
`
`Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed
`
`not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
`
`3.
`
`The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the
`
`description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph, is invoked.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/328,359
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the
`
`following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`
`(A)
`
`the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute
`
`for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-
`
`structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed
`
`function;
`
`(B)
`
`the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
`
`language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g.,
`
`“means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so
`
`that”; and
`
`(C)
`
`the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
`
`structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
`
`Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a
`
`rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35
`
`U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim
`
`limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or
`
`acts to entirely perform the recited function.
`
`Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable
`
`presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/328,359
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting
`
`sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
`
`Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are
`
`being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,
`
`except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this
`
`application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under
`
`35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise
`
`indicated in an Office action.
`
`4.
`
`This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word
`
`“means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder
`
`that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform
`
`the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
`
`Such claim limitation(s) is/are: electric motor element, compression element, vibration
`
`damping member in claim 1 ; refrigeration device, decompression device, heat absorber
`
`in claim 12.
`
`Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to
`
`cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the
`
`claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/328,359
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35
`
`U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
`
`(1) amend the
`
`claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the
`
`claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s)
`
`sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being
`
`interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
`
`5.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1 12
`
`1.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
`
`(b) CONCLUSION—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly
`pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor
`regards as the invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph:
`
`The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA),
`
`second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
`
`claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the
`
`applicant regards as the invention.
`
`1.
`
`The term "substantial conformity" in claim 1
`
`is a relative term which renders the
`
`claim indefinite. The term "substantial conformity" is not defined by the claim, the
`
`specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/328,359
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`invention. Claim 1
`
`is interpreted such that the natural frequency of the vibration damping
`
`member is in some conformity with the natural frequency of the hermetic container.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 5 recites a fixed part but it is unclear if a fixed part refers to the one part
`
`fixed to the hermetic container of claim 1. Claim 5 is interpreted such that a fixed part
`
`refers to the recited one part fixed to the hermetic container of claim 1.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`6.
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any
`
`correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of
`
`rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be
`
`the same under either status.
`
`7.
`
`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.
`
`8.
`
`Claimjs) 1-4, 6-7, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being
`
`anticipated by Kita (JP 2000249061).
`
`9.
`
`Regarding claim 1,
`
`10.
`
`Referring to the embodiment shown in Figs. 1, 7-8 Kita teaches
`
`A hermetic compressor 1 comprising, inside a hermetic container 2: an
`
`electric motor element 4;
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/328,359
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`a compression element 5 driven by the electric motor element; a
`
`lubricating oil 22 for lubricating the compression element; and
`
`a vibration damping member 36 having one part 25 fixed to the hermetic
`
`container and another part being a free end part (e.g. the free end part
`
`comprising free end parts 29-34), wherein a natural frequency of the
`
`vibration damping member is in substantial conformity with a natural
`
`frequency of the hermetic container (see pars. 46, 49, 53, 76, 115).
`
`11.
`
`Regarding claim 2,
`
`12.
`
`Kita teaches wherein the vibration damping member 36 includes a plurality of the
`
`free end parts (e.g. free end parts 29-35).
`
`13.
`
`Regarding claim 3,
`
`14.
`
`Kita teaches wherein the plurality of the free end parts of the vibration clamping
`
`member have different natural frequencies (see pars. 112-113).
`
`15.
`
`Regarding claim 4,
`
`16.
`
`Kita teaches wherein a plurality of the vibration clamping members are provided
`
`(see at least par. 87).
`
`17.
`
`Regarding claim 6,
`
`18.
`
`Kita teaches wherein the vibration damping member is provided inwardly of the
`
`hermetic container.
`
`19.
`
`Regarding claim 7,
`
`20.
`
`Kita teaches wherein the vibration clamping member is provided to be positioned
`
`in the lubricating oil 22 at a bottom of the hermetic container.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/328,359
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`21.
`
`Regarding claim 9,
`
`22.
`
`Kita teaches
`
`23.
`
`wherein the vibration damping member further includes, other than the free end
`
`part (e.g. the free end part comprising free end parts 29-34), another part 35 including
`
`at least one contact part (e.g. the bottom part that contacts the container) that is in
`
`elastic contact with a surface of the hermetic container (see pars. 28, 79, 100, 128).
`
`24.
`
`Regarding claim 10,
`
`25.
`
`Kita teaches wherein the compression element is of a reciprocating type (see
`
`par. 68).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`2.
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any
`
`correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of
`
`rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be
`
`the same under either status.
`
`3.
`
`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.
`
`4.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
`
`USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining
`
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/328,359
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
`
`2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
`
`3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
`
`obviousness or nonobviousness.
`
`5.
`
`This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the
`
`claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was
`
`commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any
`
`evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to
`
`point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly
`
`owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to
`
`consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)
`
`prior art against the later invention.
`
`6.
`
`
`Claims 1 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Byung Hyun Kim (US 2006/0292023).
`
`26.
`
`Regarding claims 1, 5,
`
`27.
`
`Referring to Figs. 1, 3C Byung Hyun Kim teaches
`
`A hermetic compressor (see par. 5) comprising, inside a hermetic
`
`container 1 :
`
`an electric motor element (see par. 5);
`
`a compression element (see par. 5) driven by the electric motor element;
`
`and a vibration damping member 50 having one part 51 fixed to the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/328,359
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`hermetic container and another part being a free end part 54, wherein a
`
`natural frequency of the vibration damping member is in substantial
`
`conformity with a natural frequency of the hermetic container (see pars.
`
`33-35),
`
`wherein the vibration damping member has a fixed part (e.g. part 51)
`
`fixed to a part where amplitude of the natural frequency of the hermetic
`
`container is greatest (e.g. at the antinode of the lower case 10b).
`
`1.
`
`Byung Hyun Kim does not specifically teach a lubricating oil for lubricating the
`
`compression element. However the examiner takes official notice that it is well known in
`
`the art to provide lubricating oil for lubricating the compression element of a hermetic
`
`compressor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`before the filing date of the invention to modify Byung Hyun Kim with the motivation of
`
`advantageously providing lubricating oil for lubricating the compression element in order
`
`to prevent frictional damage to the compression element.
`
`28.
`
`29. m islare rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kita in
`
`view of Chul-sung Kim (US 6435841).
`
`30.
`
`Regarding claim 8,
`
`31.
`
`Kita teaches wherein the vibration damping member is formed of a steel plate
`
`(see pars 91 -92) but does not teach wherein the vibration damping member is formed of
`
`an iron plate.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/328,359
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`32.
`
`Chul-sung Kim, directed to a hermetic reciprocating compressor, teaches an
`
`elastic member 70 that may be formed of any metal material having elasticity such as
`
`iron or steel (see col 4, lines 62-63).
`
`33.
`
`Since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its
`
`suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see
`
`MPEP 2144.07), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`filing date of the invention to modify Kita by Chul-sung Kim with the motivation of
`
`providing a relatively cheaper material (e.g. iron is usually cheaper than steel) that still
`
`provides suitable elasticity.
`
`34.
`
`Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kita in
`
`view of Kawabata (US 2008/0253909).
`
`35.
`
`Regarding claim 11,
`
`36.
`
`Kita does not teach wherein driving at a plurality of operating frequencies is
`
`caused by an inverter.
`
`37.
`
`Kawabata, directed to a closed type electric refrigerant compressor, teaches
`
`wherein driving at a plurality of operating frequencies is caused by an inverter as
`
`hermetic container 301 comprises a compression mechanism 303 driven by inverter
`
`type electric motor 304 (see pars. 77, 97).
`
`38.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date
`
`of the invention to modify Kita by Kawabata with the motivation of modulating the
`
`compression capacity of the compressor of Kita and thereby satisfy alternating
`
`compressing demands.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/328,359
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`39.
`
`Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiwata
`
`(US 2014/0099218) in view of Kita.
`
`40.
`
`Regarding claim 12,
`
`41.
`
`Referring to Fig. 7, Hiwata teaches a refrigeration device 500 comprising a
`
`refrigerant circuit including a compressor 100 , a radiator 502, a decompression device
`
`504, and a heat absorber 506 that are connected in a loop by piping (see par. 128) but
`
`does not teach wherein the compressor is the hermetic compressor according to claim
`
`1.
`
`42.
`
`Kita, directed to a hermetic compressor, teaches the hermetic compressor
`
`according to claim 1.
`
`43.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date
`
`of the invention to modify Hiwata by Kita with the motivation of employing a low noise
`
`compressor (see Kita par. 1).
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to STEVE TANENBAUM whose telephone number is
`
`(313)446-6522. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday
`
`10:30 AM to 7 PM.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on (571) 272-6681. The fax phone number for
`
`the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/328,359
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
`
`/S. T./
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 3744
`
`/DAVID TEITELBAUM/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3744
`
`