www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/792,579
`
`07/13/2022
`
`Wataru SANEMATSU
`
`083710-3683
`
`5952
`
`Rimon PC - Pansonic Corporation
`8300 Greensboro Dr.
`Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`
`SPATZ, ABBY M
`
`3732
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`01/31/2024
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or 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):
`USPTOmail@rimonlaw.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Office Action Summary
`
`Application No.
`17/792,579
`Examiner
`ABBY M SPATZ
`
`Applicant(s)
`SANEMATSU etal.
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`3732
`Yes
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORYPERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensionsof time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom 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) MONTHSfrom 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, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 7/13/2022.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)(2) 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 Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-17 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C} Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected.
`(] Claim(s)__ is/are objectedto.
`C] Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)( The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11) The drawing(s) filed on 7/13/2022 is/are:
`a)[(¥) accepted or b)() 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)(¥) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`_—_c)L) None ofthe:
`b)L) Some**
`a)Y) All
`1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. |
`3.2.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin 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)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20240117
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/792,579
`Art Unit: 3732
`
`Page 2
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`underthe first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Status of Claims
`
`This office action is in response to the application filed 7/13/2022, wherein claims
`
`1-17 are pending.
`
`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).
`
`A timelyfiled terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321 (d)
`
`may be used to overcome an actualor provisional rejection based on nonstatutory
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/792,579
`Art Unit: 3732
`
`Page 3
`
`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 scopeof a joint research agreement. See
`
`MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination underthe first inventor to file
`
`provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146etseq.for
`
`applications not subject to examination underthe first inventor to file provisions of the
`
`AlA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
`
`The filing of a terminal disclaimerbyitself 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 |.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 requestfor
`
`reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may befiled after final for
`
`consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
`
`The USPTOInternet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be
`
`used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actualfiling 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 befilled 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/792,579
`Art Unit: 3732
`
`Page 4
`
`Claims 1-3 and 6, are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
`
`double patenting as being unpatentable overclaims 1,2, 5-7 of co-pending Application
`
`No. 17792555 (reference application) and further in view of Taylor et al. (U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5323550).
`
`Claim 1 of the present application is taught by claims 1, 6 and 7 of ‘555 except
`
`for a mechanical temperature sensor that shuts off a power supply when the base
`
`surface is in an abnormally high temperature state caused byfailure or malfunction of
`
`the detector or the controller.
`
`Taylor teaches an iron including a mechanical temperature sensor that shuts off
`
`a powersupply whenthe basesurfaceis in an abnormally high temperature state
`
`causedbyfailure or malfunction of the thermostat microswitch (used to control sole
`
`plate temperature, col. 6, lines 24-26) (col. 9, lines 3-9).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to oneof ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the effectivefiling date of the claimed invention to have added a mechanical
`
`temperature sensor to the invention of Matsushita that shuts off a power supply when
`
`the base surfaceis in an abnormally high temperature state caused byfailure or
`
`malfunction of the detector or the controller in view of Taylor in order to provide a safety
`
`feature that would prevent scorching the underlying material being ironed and/or
`
`causingafire.
`
`Claim 2 of the present application is taught by claim 1 of ‘555.
`
`Claim 3 of the present application is taught by claim 2 of ‘555.
`
`Claim 6 of the present application is taught by claim 5 of ‘555.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/792,579
`Art Unit: 3732
`
`Page 5
`
`This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the
`
`patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basisfor 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 effectivefiling date of the claimed invention to a person having
`ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be
`negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`Claim(s) 1,5-8, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Matsushita (JP04156899, mapping below corresponds to translation
`
`supplied by applicant) in view of Taylor et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5323550).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Matsushita teaches aniron (fig. 1) comprising: a light emitter
`
`(2) that emits light (pg. 4); a base surface (1) that transmits the light (pg. 4); a detector
`
`(4)that detects a temperature of the base surface (pg. 5); a controller (5) that controls an
`
`output of the light emitter in accordance with the temperature of the base surface
`
`detected by the detector (pg. 5);
`
`but fails to teach a mechanical temperature sensor that shuts off a power supply
`
`when the base surface is in an abnormally high temperature state caused byfailure or
`
`malfunction of the detector or the controller.
`
`Taylor teaches an iron including a mechanical temperature sensor that shuts off
`
`a power supply whenthe basesurfaceis in an abnormally high temperature state
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/792,579
`Art Unit: 3732
`
`Page 6
`
`causedbyfailure or malfunction of the thermostat microswitch (used to control sole
`
`plate temperature, col. 6, lines 24-26) (col. 9, lines 3-9).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to oneof ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the effectivefiling date of the claimed invention to have added a mechanical
`
`temperature sensor to the invention of Matsushita that shuts off a power supply when
`
`the base surfaceis in an abnormally high temperature state caused byfailure or
`
`malfunction of the detector or the controller in view of Taylor in order to provide a safety
`
`feature that would prevent scorching the underlying material being ironed and/or
`
`causingafire.
`
`Regarding claim 5, the Matsushita/Taylor combined reference teaches a
`
`reflection plate (3) that reflects the light toward the base surface (pg. 4), wherein the
`
`reflection plate has a bowl shape, and hasa flat apex (fig. 1).
`
`Regarding claim 6, the Matsushita/Taylor combined reference teachesthe light
`
`emitter (2) is a halogen lamp (pg. 4).
`
`Regarding claim 7, the Matsushita/Taylor combined reference teachesthe light
`
`emitter (2) has a U-shape, a horseshoe shape, or a round shape (round shape,figs.
`
`2,3).
`
`Regarding claim 8, the Matsushita/Taylor combined reference teachesthe light
`
`emitter (2) includes a seal (A, see annotated fig.) positioned outside the reflection plate
`
`(3) (fig. 1).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/792,579
`Art Unit: 3732
`
`Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regarding claim 14, the Matsushita/Taylor combined reference teaches the
`
`controller (5) executes control for increasing an output of the light emitter when the
`
`temperature detected by the detector is within a first predetermined temperature, and
`
`decreasing or stopping the output of the light emitter when the temperature of the base
`
`surface is greater than or equal to a second predetermined temperature higher than the
`
`first predetermined temperature at a predetermined interval (pg. 6 of Matsushita).
`
`Regarding claim 15, the Matsushita/Taylor combined reference teaches the
`
`detector (4) includes a thermistor, a resistance temperature detector, or a
`
`thermocouple, (thermistor, pg. 5) the detector is disposed between the light emitter (2)
`
`and the base surface (disposed between 2 and bottom surfaceof1, fig. 1), and the
`
`detector is closely fixed to the base surface within a predetermined range from a center
`
`portion of the base surface(fig. 1).
`
`Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Matsushita (JP04156899, mapping below corresponds to translation supplied by
`
`applicant) in view of Taylor et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5323550) and furtherin view of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/792,579
`Art Unit: 3732
`
`Page 8
`
`Maxell (JP2019126452, mapping below corresponds to translation supplied by
`
`applicant).
`
`Regarding claim 2, the Matsushita/Taylor combinedreferencefails to teach a
`
`filter that is disposed betweenthe light emitter and the base surface and suppresses
`
`transmission ofvisible light.
`
`Maxell teachesaniron (figs. 1-5) havingafilter (23) that is disposed between the
`
`light emitter (13) and the base surface (14) (fig. 3) and suppresses transmission of
`
`visible light (para. 39).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to oneof ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the effectivefiling date of the claimed invention to have addeda filter disposed
`
`betweenthe light emitter and the base surface of the Matsushita/Taylor combined
`
`reference that suppresses transmission ofvisible light in view of Maxell in orderto
`
`preventglare (para. 39 of Maxell).
`
`Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Matsushita (JP04156899, mapping below corresponds to translation supplied by
`
`applicant) in view of Taylor et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5323550) in view of Maxell
`
`(JP2019126452, mapping below corresponds to translation supplied by applicant) and
`
`further in view of Van Bommeletal. (U.S. Patent No. 9462650).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/792,579
`Art Unit: 3732
`
`Page 9
`
`Regarding claim 3, Maxell teachesin the relied on embodimentthatthe filter
`
`absorbsvisible light (para. 67). Therefore, the Matsushita/Taylor/Maxell combined
`
`referencefails to teach the filter reflects the visible light.
`
`Van Bommel teaches dimmingalight emitting device via a filter that reflects
`
`visible light and teaches absorption and reflective filters as known alternatives (col. 16,
`
`lines 51-67, col. 17, lines 1-8).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to oneof ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the effectivefiling date of the claimed invention to have replacedthe filter of the
`
`Matsushita/Taylor/Maxell combined referencewithafilter that reflects the visible lightin
`
`view of Van Bommel because doing so would be substituting one known elementfor
`
`anotherto obtain the predictable result of providingalightfilter.
`
`Regarding claim 4, Maxell teachesin the relied on embodimentthatthe filter is a
`
`long passfilter that absorbs visible light (para. 67). Therefore, the
`
`Matsushita/Taylor/Maxell combined referencefails to teach the filter is a dichroic mirror.
`
`Van Bommel teaches dimming a light emitting device via a dichroic mirror filter
`
`and teaches absorption andreflectivefilters as knownalternatives (col. 16, lines 51-67,
`
`col. 17, lines 1-8).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to oneof ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the effectivefiling date of the claimed invention to have replacedthe filter of the
`
`Matsushita/Taylor/Maxell combined reference with a dichroic mirror filter in view of Van
`
`Bommel because doing so would be substituting one known elementfor another to
`
`obtain the predictable result of providing a lightfilter.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/792,579
`Art Unit: 3732
`
`Page 10
`
`Claim(s) 9, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Matsushita (JP04156899, mapping below corresponds to translation supplied by
`
`applicant) in view of Taylor et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5323550) and further in view of
`
`Adkinsetal. (U.S. Patent No. 8756840).
`
`Regarding claim 9, the Matsushita/Taylor combined reference teaches the base
`
`surface (1) includes a glass body (pg. 4) (col. 6, lines 7-10); but fails to teach the base
`
`surface includes metalframes.
`
`Adkins teaches aniron (abstract) wherein the base surface includes a glass body
`
`(301) (col. 6, lines 7-10) and metal frames (300,304) (col. 6, lines 16-19)(fig. 3).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to oneof ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the effectivefiling date of the claimed invention to have formed the base surface
`
`of the Matsushita/Taylor combined referenceso asto include metal framesin view of
`
`Adkinsin orderto protect the glass body (col. 10, lines 3-14 of Adkins).
`
`Regarding claim 12, the Matsushita/Taylor/Adkins combined reference teaches
`
`an end of the glass body(fig. 3 at front end) is sandwiched betweenthe metal frames
`
`(sandwiched between 300 on right and 304onleft).
`
`Regarding claim 13, the Matsushita/Taylor/Adkins combined reference teaches
`
`a thermal conductive heat-resistant bond (303) is applied to an interface surface
`
`between the glass body and eachof the metal frames(col. 7, lines 6-15)(fig. 3).
`
`Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Matsushita (JP04156899, mapping below corresponds to translation supplied by
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/792,579
`Art Unit: 3732
`
`Page 11
`
`applicant) in view of Taylor et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5323550) in view of Adkins etal.
`
`(U.S. Patent No. 8756840) and further in view of Clowes (U.S. 20150225891).
`
`Regarding claim 10, the Matsushita/Taylor/Adkins combined referencefails to
`
`teach an infrared transmittance of the glass body has a wavelength from 2600 nm to
`
`3500 nm inclusive, and is less than or equal to 50%.
`
`Clowes teachesaniron (fig. 10, para. 92) wherein optical energy emitted can be
`
`tailored based on the needsof the treatment (paras. 59,31).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the invention of
`
`the Matsushita/Taylor/Adkins combined reference such that an infrared transmittance of
`
`the glass body has a wavelength from 2600 nm to 3500 nm inclusive, and is less than
`
`or equal to 50%in order to adaptthe iron to treat a material that would be best treated
`
`by infrared transmittance of the glass body having a wavelength from 2600 nm to 3500
`
`nm inclusive, and is less than or equal to 50%.
`
`Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Matsushita (JP04156899, mapping below corresponds to translation supplied by
`
`applicant) in view of Taylor et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5323550) in view of Adkins etal.
`
`(U.S. Patent No. 8756840) and further in view of Mirkes et al. (U.S. 20080110870).
`
`Regarding claim 11, the Matsushita/Taylor/Adkins combined referencefails to
`
`teach the glass bodyis heat- resistant tempered glass.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/792,579
`Art Unit: 3732
`
`Page 12
`
`Mirkes teaches a heating device (100) having a heated surface formed from a
`
`glass body (111) of heat-resistant tempered glass (para. 42, tempered glassis heat
`
`resistant to at least some degree).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to oneof ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the glass bodyof
`
`the Matsushita/Taylor/Adkins combined reference of heat-resistant tempered glass in
`
`view of Mirkes in order to provide the glass body with increased strength and/or scratch
`
`resistance.
`
`Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Matsushita (JP04156899, mapping below corresponds to translation supplied by
`
`applicant) in view of Taylor et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5323550) in view of Matsushita (JP
`
`2002267539, mapping below corresponds to translation supplied by examiner) and
`
`further in view of Kanehori (U.S. 20040194546).
`
`Regarding claim 16, the Matsushita/Taylor combined reference teaches a lead
`
`wire connectedto the detector (wire connectedto 4, fig. 1) but fails to teach the detector
`
`and the lead wire connectedto the detector are covered with an infrared reflection
`
`member.
`
`Matsushita ‘539 teaches a temperature measuring device (abstract) comprising a
`
`detector (21) covered with an infrared reflection member(5) (top of page 3)(figs. 1,2).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/792,579
`Art Unit: 3732
`
`Page 13
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to oneof ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have covered the detector of
`
`the Matsushita/Taylor combined reference with an infrared reflection memberin view of
`
`Matsushita ‘539 in order to allow the detector to more accurately measure the
`
`temperature of the base surface (paras. 4,5, top of pg. 3 of Matsushita ‘539).
`
`The Matsushita/Taylor/ Matsushita ‘539 combined reference doesn’t specifically
`
`teach the lead wire connected to the detector covered with the infrared reflection
`
`member.
`
`Kanehori teaches a sensor (abstract) having a lead wire covered with an infrared
`
`reflection member(plated with nickel, chrome, silver, gold or platinum, para. 47).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to oneof ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the infrared
`
`reflection memberso asto further cover the lead wire of the Matsushita/Taylor/
`
`Matsushita ‘539 combined reference in view of Kanehori in order to provide corrosion
`
`resistance and/or to further protect the wire and detector (para. 47 of Kanehori).
`
`Regarding claim 17, the Matsushita/Taylor/ Matsushita ‘539/Kanehori combined
`
`reference teachesthe infrared reflection memberis a tape, a sheet, or a case made of
`
`aluminum, copper, brass, silver, gold, platinum, nickel, chromium, lead, or tin (figs. 1,2
`
`of Matsushita ‘539, pg. 4, coating of JP-A-02-92530 includes nickel or aluminum).
`
`Conclusion
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/792,579
`Art Unit: 3732
`
`Page 14
`
`Anyinquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to ABBY M SPATZ whosetelephone numberis (571)270-
`
`0579. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-6:00 EST.
`
`Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video
`
`conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an
`
`interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request
`
`(AIR) at http:/Avwww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
`
`supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached on 571-272-4888. The fax phone numberfor
`
`the organization wherethis application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be
`
`obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Centeris
`
`available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center,
`
`visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-
`
`center for more information about Patent Center and
`
`https:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information aboutfiling 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 CustomerService
`
`Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA)or 571-272-1000.
`
`/ABBY M SPATZ/
`Examiner, Art Unit 3732
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/792,579
`Art Unit: 3732
`
`/NATHAN E DURHAM/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
`
`Page 15
`
`