DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on November 20, 2024, claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16 are amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 20, 2024 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that Kim does not teach or suggest the “processing circuitry but rather discloses a battery charger having a monitoring unit that detects the capacity, voltage, current and temperature of the battery unit using a temperature sensor. The battery charger of Kim “starts” with CC mode and starts charging at a C-rate in a first interval and starts charging by setting the charging current amount to a different C-rate if in another interval. Kim does not disclose selecting the C rates for the different intervals in the CV mode.
The reference of Kim is withdrawn, however, upon further consideration the reference of Greening discloses the features of the independent claims. As detailed below, Greening discloses temperature-adaptive charging where the C-rate is selected based on the temperature for a constant voltage charging operation (see Greening; ¶61-64). The reference of Srinivasan et al. US20170149256A1 is also brought in to disclose various temperature thresholds.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Greening et al. US20150022160A1.
Regarding claim 1, Greening discloses a temperature-adaptive rechargeable battery system (¶4).
Greening discloses that the system includes a battery charger (FIG. 11) configured to provide a charging current to charge a rechargeable battery (1110).
Greening discloses that the system includes processing circuitry (controller 1120).
Greening discloses processing to monitor a temperature of the rechargeable battery (¶80 - thermal sensor 1130).
Greening discloses processing to select a temperature dependent C rate (FIG. 8; ¶64 - the C-rate is different for a cell at 25 degrees C and 10 degrees C) for charging the rechargeable battery based upon the temperature of the rechargeable battery in a constant voltage (CV) charging operation (FIG. 8; ¶61 - C-rate/constant voltage pairs at the steps 4.0 V, 4.1V, 4.2V; ¶64 - different C-rates at the different temperatures).
Greening discloses teaches to cause the battery charger to vary the charging current based on the temperature dependent C rate (FIG. 8 illustrates a change in the current based on the temperature and C-rate; ¶71 - the effective C-rate is used to adjust the charging current for the battery; ¶64 – for a cell at 25 degrees C, there is no difference between the effective C-rate and the measured, for 10 degrees C, the measured C-rate is significantly smaller than the effective C-rate) to maintain the voltage at the rechargeable battery in the CV charging operation (¶61 - the battery voltage is held at a specific voltage until the current drops to the next target pair until reaching a specified c-rate).
Greening discloses the processing to cause the battery charger to disable the charging current (¶76; FIG. 10 at 1014 - Once the charge-termination limit is reached, charging of the battery is terminated) in response to the charging current reaching the selected temperature dependent C rate (¶75-76; FIG. 10 at 1010 - effective C-rate reaches the limit).
Regarding claim 5, Greening teaches to cause the battery charger to vary the voltage at the rechargeable battery to maintain the charging current as a constant current in a constant current (CC) charging operation (¶41 – constant-current/constant voltage steps).
Greening teaches to cause the battery charger to switch from the CC charging operation to the CV charging operation in response to the voltage reaching a pre-determined battery voltage (¶61 – predetermined voltages are 4.0, 4.1 and 4.2 where constant current charging is illustrated in FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 6, Greening teaches to monitor the voltage at the rechargeable battery (FIG. 11 at voltmeter 1106).
Regarding claim 7, Greening teaches that the processing circuitry is configured to determine the temperature dependent C rate from: C/x', wherein C represents a 1.0C rate and x represents a mathematical function having the temperature of rechargeable battery as an argument of the mathematical function (Because Greening teaches a charging rate (C-rate) that is dependent upon the temperature it follows that it is determined by some mathematical function that includes a temperature. Because the units are “C”, it also follows that the formula involves 1.0C).
Regarding claim 8, Greening discloses a method of operating a rechargeable battery (1110) (¶4).
Greening discloses monitoring, by a processor circuitry (controller 1120), a temperature of a rechargeable battery (¶80 – thermal sensor 1130) as the rechargeable battery (1110) is being charged by a charging current (¶71).
Greening discloses selecting, by the processor circuitry (controller 1120), a temperature dependent C rate (FIG. 8; 64 - the C-rate is different for a cell at 25 degrees C and 10 degrees C) from among a plurality of temperature dependent C rates in response to the temperature of the rechargeable battery (¶49) in a constant voltage (CV) charging operation (FIG. 8; para 61 - C-rate/constant voltage pairs at the steps 4.0 V, 4.1V, 4.2V; ¶64 - different C-rates at the different temperatures).
Greening teaches causing, by the processor circuitry, the charging current to be varied toward the selected temperature dependent C rate (FIG. 8 illustrates a change in the current based on the temperature and C-rate; ¶71 - the effective C-rate is used to adjust the charging current for the battery; ¶64 – for a cell at 25 degrees C, there is no difference between the effective C-rate and the measured, for 10 degrees C, the measured C0rate is significantly smaller than the effective C-rate) to maintain the voltage at the rechargeable battery in the CV charging operation (¶61 - the battery voltage is held at a specific voltage until the current drops to the next target pair until reaching a specified c-rate).
Greening discloses the processing to disabling charging of the rechargeable battery (¶76; FIG. 10 at 1014 - Once the charge-termination limit is reached, charging of the battery is terminated) in response to the charging current reaching the selected temperature dependent C rate (¶75-76; FIG. 10 at 1010 - effective C-rate reaches the limit).
Regarding claim 12, Greening teaches to causing, by the processor circuitry, a voltage at the rechargeable battery to be varied to maintain the charging current as a constant current in a constant current (CC) charging operation (FIG. 8; ¶41 – constant-current/constant voltage steps).
Greening teaches switching, by the processor circuitry, from the CC charging operation to the CV charging operation in response to the voltage reaching a pre-determined battery voltage (¶61 – predetermined voltages are 4.0, 4.1 and 4.2 where constant current charging is illustrated in FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 13, Greening teaches monitoring, by the processor circuitry, the voltage at the rechargeable battery (FIG. 11 at voltmeter 1106).
Regarding claim 14, Greening teaches the pre-determined battery voltage comprises: a maximum battery voltage (¶8 – fixed upper limit voltage 4.2V).
Regarding claim 15, Greening teaches a portable electronic device (¶4).
Greening discloses a temperature-adaptive rechargeable battery system (¶4) configured to provide a charging current to charge a rechargeable battery (1110).
Greening discloses that the system includes a host processor (controller 1120).
Greening discloses processing to monitor a temperature of the rechargeable battery (¶80 - thermal sensor 1130).
Greening discloses processing to select a temperature dependent C rate (FIG. 8; ¶64 - the C-rate is different for a cell at 25 degrees C and 10 degrees C) for charging the rechargeable battery based upon the temperature of the rechargeable battery in a constant voltage (CV) charging operation (FIG. 8; ¶61 - C-rate/constant voltage pairs at the steps 4.0 V, 4.1V, 4.2V; ¶64 - different C-rates at the different temperatures).
Greening teaches to cause the temperature-adaptive rechargeable battery system to vary the charging current based on the selected temperature dependent C rate (FIG. 8 illustrates a change in the current based on the temperature and C-rate; ¶71 - the effective C-rate is used to adjust the charging current for the battery; ¶64 – for a cell at 25 degrees C, there is no difference between the effective C-rate and the measured, for 10 degrees C, the measured C0rate is significantly smaller than the effective C-rate) to maintain the voltage at the rechargeable battery in the CV charging operation (¶61 - the battery voltage is held at a specific voltage until the current drops to the next target pair until reaching a specified c-rate).
Greening discloses the processing to cause the battery charger to disable the charging current (¶76; FIG. 10 at 1014 - Once the charge-termination limit is reached, charging of the battery is terminated) in response to the charging current reaching the selected temperature dependent C rate (¶75-76; FIG. 10 at 1010 - effective C-rate reaches the limit).
Regarding claim 18, Greening teaches that the processing circuitry is configured to determine the temperature dependent C rate from: C/x', wherein C represents a 1.0C rate and x represents a mathematical function having the temperature of rechargeable battery as an argument of the mathematical function
(Because Greening teaches a charging rate (C-rate) that is dependent upon the temperature it follows that it is determined by some mathematical function that includes a temperature. Because the units are “C”, it also follows that the formula involves 1.0C).
Regarding claim 19, Greening teaches to vary a voltage at the rechargeable battery to maintain the charging current as a constant current in a constant current (CC) charging operation (¶41 – constant-current/constant voltage steps).
Greening teaches to cause the battery charger to switch from the CC charging operation to the CV charging operation in response to the voltage reaching a pre-determined battery voltage (¶61 – predetermined voltages are 4.0, 4.1 and 4.2 where constant current charging is illustrated in FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 20, Greening teaches to monitor the voltage at the rechargeable battery (FIG. 11 at voltmeter 1106).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greening et al. US20150022160A1 in view of Srinivasan et al. US20170149256A1.
Regarding claim 2, Greening discloses processing to select a first temperature dependent C rate (¶64 - less than 0.7C) from among a plurality of temperature dependent C rates to be the temperature dependent C rate in response to the temperature of the rechargeable battery being within a first temperature range in the CV charging operation (¶60-61 – the temperature dependency is taken into account in the temperature-dependent effective c-rate/constant voltage; The constant-effective C-rate/constant voltage first is 0.7 C/4.0 V; ¶64 – for the c-rate at 10 degrees C, the c-rate is significantly smaller than the effective C-rate)
Greening discloses processing to select a second temperature dependent C rate (0.7C) from among the plurality of temperature dependent C rates to be the temperature dependent C rate in response to the temperature of the rechargeable battery being within a second temperature range in the CV charging operation (¶60-61 – the temperature dependency is taken into account in the temperature-dependent effective c-rate/constant voltage; ¶64 – for the typical cell at 25 degrees C, there is no difference between the effective C-rate and the measured C-rate).
Greening does not explicitly disclose processing to select a third temperature dependent C rate from among the plurality of temperature dependent C rates to be the temperature dependent C rate in response to the temperature of the rechargeable battery being within a third temperature range in the CV charging operation.
Srinivasan discloses select a third temperature dependent C rate (¶39 – charging rate selector) from among the plurality of temperature dependent C rates to be the temperature dependent C rate in response to the temperature of the rechargeable battery being within a third temperature range in the CV charging operation (¶39/¶62 – battery temperature exceeds the temperature charging threshold and the charging rate selector reduces the charging rate to 0.5 of the previous charging rate, or even zero; ¶64 – the battery charging monitor applies a charging rate to maintain a constant voltage).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an advantageous temperature threshold to the system of Greening in order to allow for higher charging rates and increase safety by overheating (Srinvasan; ¶20).
Regarding claim 4, Greening discloses that the first temperature range comprises temperatures less than thirty (30) degrees Celsius (¶64 –10 degrees C).
Greening discloses that wherein the second temperature range (around 25 degrees C).
Greening does not explicitly disclose the second temperature range is between thirty (30) degrees Celsius and thirty-seven (37) degrees Celsius and the third temperature range comprises temperatures greater than thirty-seven (37) degrees Celsius.
In an embodiment of Srinvasan, the second temperature range is between thirty (30) degrees Celsius and thirty-seven (37) degrees Celsius (¶61 – charging rate is maintained until the internal temperature reaches 34 degrees Celsius and 40 degrees Celsius) and
Srinvasan discloses the third temperature range comprises temperatures greater than a temperature threshold (¶39 and 61). Although the embodiment of ¶61 discusses the threshold being 34 (for anode) and 40 (for cathode) degrees, The cathode temperature and additionally ¶39 discloses the threshold being 70 degrees, which is greater than thirty-seven (37) degrees Celsius.
The examiner notes that Srinvasan discloses the temperature threshold is 34/40 degrees where above the threshold for the anode is 3 degrees separated from the claimed 37 degrees Celsius. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as part of routine experimentation during determination of the threshold of Srinvasan and having a reasonable expectation of success to modify the threshold of Srinvasan to determine the optimal temperature threshold that would cause overheating and degradation. The Courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and similarly a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an advantageous temperature threshold to the system of Greening in order to allow for higher charging rates and increase safety by over-heating (Srinvasan; ¶20).
Regarding claim 9, Greening discloses selecting, by the processor circuitry, a first temperature dependent C rate (¶64 - less than 0.7C) from among the plurality of temperature dependent C rates to be the temperature dependent C rate in response to temperature of the rechargeable battery being within a first temperature range in the CV charging operation (¶60-61 – the temperature dependent is taken into account in the temperature-dependent effective c-rate/constant voltage; The constant-effective C-rate/constant voltage first is 0.7 C/4.0 V; ¶64 – for the c-rate at 10 degrees C, the c-rate is significantly smaller than the effective C-rate).
Greening discloses selecting, by the processor circuitry, a second temperature dependent C rate (0.7C) from among the plurality of temperature dependent C rates to be the temperature dependent C rate in response to temperature of the rechargeable battery being within a second temperature range (¶48 - The charging device starts charging by setting the charging current amount to 0.7C if T is in the third interval) in the CV charging operation(¶60-61 – the temperature dependent is taken into account in the temperature-dependent effective c-rate/constant voltage; ¶64 – for the typical cell at 25 degrees C, there is no difference between the effective C-rate and the measured C-rate).
Greening does not explicitly disclose selecting, by the processor circuitry (¶39 – charging rate selector), a third temperature dependent C rate from among the plurality of temperature dependent C rates to be the temperature dependent C rate in response to temperature of the rechargeable battery being within a third temperature range in the CV charging operation.
Srinivasan discloses selecting, by the processor circuitry, a third temperature dependent C rate from among the plurality of temperature dependent C rates to be the temperature dependent C rate in response to temperature of the rechargeable battery being within a third temperature range in the CV charging operation (¶39/¶62 – battery temperature exceeds the temperature charging threshold and the charging rate selector reduces the charging rate to 0.5 of the previous charging rate, or even zero; ¶64 – the battery charging monitor applies a charging rate to maintain a constant voltage).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an advantageous temperature threshold to the system of Greening in order to allow for higher charging rates and increase safety by overheating (Srinvasan; ¶20).
Regarding claim 11, Greening discloses that the first temperature range comprises temperatures less than thirty (30) degrees Celsius (¶64 –10 degrees C).
Greening discloses that wherein the second temperature range (25 ° C). Greening does not explicitly disclose the second temperature range is between thirty (30) degrees Celsius and thirty-seven (37) degrees Celsius and the third temperature range comprises temperatures greater than thirty-seven (37) degrees Celsius.
In an embodiment of Srinvasan, the second temperature range is between thirty (30) degrees Celsius and thirty-seven (37) degrees Celsius (¶61 – charging rate is maintained until the internal temperature reaches 34 degrees Celsius and 40 degrees Celsius) and
Srinvasan discloses the third temperature range comprises temperatures greater than a temperature threshold (¶39 and 61). Although the embodiment of ¶61 discusses the threshold being 34 (for anode) and 40 (for cathode) degrees, The cathode temperature and additionally ¶39 discloses the threshold being 70 degrees, which is greater than thirty-seven (37) degrees Celsius.
The examiner notes that Srinvasan discloses the temperature threshold is 34/40 degrees where above the threshold for the anode is 3 degrees separated from the claimed 37 degrees Celsius. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as part of routine experimentation during determination of the threshold of Srinvasan and having a reasonable expectation of success to modify the threshold of Srinvasan to determine the optimal temperature threshold that would cause overheating and degradation. The Courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and similarly a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an advantageous temperature threshold to the system of Greening in order to allow for higher charging rates and increase safety by over-heating (Srinvasan; ¶20).
Regarding claim 16, Greening discloses processing to select a first temperature dependent C rate (¶64 - less than 0.7C) from among a plurality of temperature dependent C rates to be the temperature dependent C rate in response to the temperature of the rechargeable battery being within a first temperature range in the CV charging operation (¶60-61 – the temperature dependency is taken into account in the temperature-dependent effective c-rate/constant voltage; The constant-effective C-rate/constant voltage first is 0.7 C/4.0 V; ¶64 – for the c-rate at 10 degrees C, the c-rate is significantly smaller than the effective C-rate).
Greening discloses processing to select a second temperature dependent C rate (0.7C) from among the plurality of temperature dependent C rates to be the temperature dependent C rate in response to the temperature of the rechargeable battery being within a second temperature range in the CV charging operation (¶60-61 – the temperature dependency is taken into account in the temperature-dependent effective c-rate/constant voltage; ¶64 – for the typical cell at 25 degrees C, there is no difference between the effective C-rate and the measured C-rate).
Greening does not explicitly disclose processing to select a third temperature dependent C rate from among the plurality of temperature dependent C rates to be the temperature dependent C rate in response to the temperature of the rechargeable battery being within a third temperature range in the CV charging operation.
Srinivasan discloses select a third temperature dependent C rate (¶39 – charging rate selector) from among the plurality of temperature dependent C rates to be the temperature dependent C rate in response to the temperature of the rechargeable battery being within a third temperature range in the CV charging operation (¶39/¶62 – battery temperature exceeds the temperature charging threshold and the charging rate selector reduces the charging rate to 0.5 of the previous charging rate, or even zero; ¶64 – the battery charging monitor applies a charging rate to maintain a constant voltage).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an advantageous temperature threshold to the system of Greening in order to allow for higher charging rates and increase safety by overheating (Srinvasan; ¶20).
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greening et al. US20150022160A1 and Srinivasan et al. US20170149256A1 in further in view of Amiruddin US20130043843A1.
Regarding claim 3, although Greening and Srinivasan teaches the different temperature ranges as detailed in claim 2, the combination of references does not explicitly teach a C/40 rate, a C/20 rate, and a C/15 rate.
Amiruddin discloses that a battery can be charged at a current from about C/40 to about 5C (¶92), thus, the range includes each of the charging rates.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the charging rates of Amiruddin to Greening in order to provide charging cycles without great loss of performance (Amiruddin; ¶3).
Regarding claim 10, although Greening and teaches the different temperature ranges as detailed in claim 9, the combination of references does not explicitly teach a C/40 rate, a C/20 rate, and a C/15 rate.
Amiruddin discloses that a battery can be charged at a current from about C/40 to about 5C (¶92), thus, the range includes each of the charging rates.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the charging rates of Amiruddin to Greening in order to provide charging cycles without great loss of performance (Amiruddin; ¶3).
Regarding claim 17, Greening discloses that the first temperature range comprises temperatures less than thirty (30) degrees Celsius( 10 degrees C).
Greening discloses that wherein the second temperature range (around 25 degrees C).
Greening does not explicitly disclose the second temperature range is between thirty (30) degrees Celsius and thirty-seven (37) degrees Celsius and the third temperature range comprises temperatures greater than thirty-seven (37) degrees Celsius; a C/40 rate, a C/20 rate, and a C/15 rate.
In an embodiment of Srinvasan, the second temperature range is between thirty (30) degrees Celsius and thirty-seven (37) degrees Celsius (¶61 – charging rate is maintained until the internal temperature reaches 34 degrees Celsius and 40 degrees Celsius) and
Srinvasan discloses the third temperature range comprises temperatures greater than a temperature threshold (¶39 and 61). Although the embodiment of ¶61 discusses the threshold being 34 (for anode) and 40 (for cathode) degrees, The cathode temperature and additionally ¶39 discloses the threshold being 70 degrees, which is greater than thirty-seven (37) degrees Celsius.
The examiner notes that Srinvasan discloses the temperature threshold is 34/40 degrees where above the threshold for the anode is 3 degrees separated from the claimed 37 degrees Celsius. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as part of routine experimentation during determination of the threshold of Srinvasan and having a reasonable expectation of success to modify the threshold of Srinvasan to determine the optimal temperature threshold that would cause overheating and degradation. The Courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and similarly a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an advantageous temperature threshold to the system of Greening in order to allow for higher charging rates and increase safety by over-heating (Srinvasan; ¶20).
Srinvasan does not explicitly disclose a C/40 rate, a C/20 rate, and a C/15 rate.
Amiruddin discloses that a battery can be charged at a current from about C/40 to about 5C (¶92), thus, the range includes each of the charging rates.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the charging rates of Amiruddin to Greening in order to provide charging cycles without great loss of performance (Amiruddin; ¶3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA JEPPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Drew Dunn can be reached on 571-272-2312. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAMELA J JEPPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859