DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/12/2026 has been entered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Analysis
2. Applicant added the following language to the claim of:
“…wherein the second compartment is located adjacent to the second end portion of the battery casing”
The language is found in P119 and is describing the third embodiment (Figs. 21-23). Specifically, there is a water-tight compartment (310) (“second compartment” within the claim) that holds the second constituent of KOH, ZCl, or H2O that interacts with the electrolyte powder within the battery casing chamber 300A (P118). The wall 320 (“at least one barrier”) of the compartment separates the “second compartment” from the compressed electrolyte powder in chamber 100A—wherein this separated area of chamber 100A is considered the “first compartment” of the claim. P119 teaches, “The compartment may be located within the casing chamber (100A) adjacent to the second end portion of the casing.” Accordingly, P118-119 in conjunction with Figs. 21-23 is the only embodiment that teaches the above features; no other embodiments in the instant application teaches the above features.
No other embodiment teaches a construct with the additional features presented in claim 1 pertaining to the battery is required to include both a first constituent (manganese dioxide, iron oxide, or crystalline silver oxide) and a second constituent (that is able to interact with the first constituent to provide an electrolyte within the chamber). The first and second embodiments do not include the second constituent as required of the claim; the end cap is removed and the second constituent is later added to the battery at a later time. Thus, the only embodiment that has a battery including both a first constituent and a second constituent as claimed with first and second compartments configured for containing the first and second constituents, respectively, and further has “…at least one barrier arranged in a first configuration within the chamber and restricts the first constituent from interacting with the second constituent” is the third embodiment (Figs. 21-23).
Specification & Drawings
3. The prior objection for introduction of new matter is withdrawn; the amendments filed on 2/12/2026 are accepted.
Drawings
4. The objection to the drawings is withdrawn as the reference numeral 320A appearing in the drawings now has an appropriate correspondence in the written description as added to the specification on 2/12/2026 which is accepted.
Claim Objections
5. The prior objections to claims 4 and 5 are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The prior Office Action rejections of claim 1, and thus dependent claims 3-7, 9-10, and 24-25; claim 6; and claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement are withdrawn in view of the amendment filed. Comments regarding the withdrawal of the rejection against claims 1 and 10 are found in the Response to Arguments section.
The rejection of claim 1, and thus dependent claims 3-7, 9-10, 24 and 25, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in view of the amendment filed.
7. Claim 67, and thus dependent claim 68, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Newly added claim 67 is not supported in terms of the use of “misaligned” which broadens the scope of what was originally taught in the disclosure which is “non-aligned.” Misaligned allows for some alignment, whereas the taught non-aligned does not. Correction can be made by way of changing “misaligned” to “non-aligned.”
For compact prosecution purposes with respect to claim 67, the claim will be interpreted as if the correction has been made. The claim is indicated as allowable below with this assumption.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. The rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 9-10, and 24-25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goebel (4,517,736) in view of Hruden et al. (US 3,376,166), and either further in view of or evidenced by Munshi (US 6,664,006) is maintained.
Regarding claim 1, Goebel teaches a battery including:
first and second battery terminals (housing 2 functions as a positive terminal (C2/L57-58) and the free end of the feedthrough member serves as a negative terminal of the cell- C3/L7-8) configured for electrical communication with a load;
a battery housing 2 (“casing”) having first and second end portions and a chamber disposed therein (Fig. 1);
a first constituent (positive electrode 3), a second constituent (electrolyte 10), and an insulating disc 19 (“at least one a solid spacer element”), and a container 9 that “is a barrier” (C3/L24) (“at least one barrier”) arranged in a first configuration within the chamber (C3/L24-62),
wherein the at least one barrier 9 restricts the first constituent (positive electrode 3) from interacting with the second constituent (electrolyte 9) (C3/L47-62),
wherein the insulating disc 19 (“at least one the solid spacer element”) comprises a disk-shape with an aperture disposed centrally and sized for a rod to fit therethrough (see Fig. 1) (disc 19 has the illustrated aperture that reads on “sized for a rod to fit therethrough1”), and the solid spacer 19 is positioned within the chamber between the first constituent (positive electrode 3) and a porous shroud 15 (“a permeable separator sheet”) (C3/L60-62), and
whereby, responsive to a force being applied to a portion of the battery (C3/L59-62), the at least one barrier 9 is configured for arrangement into into a second configuration (i.e., broken configuration) from the first configuration (illustrated, sealed configuration) so that the first constituent (positive electrode) and the second constituent (electrolyte 10) are able to interact with each other to provide an electrolyte within the chamber (entire disclosure relied upon),
wherein the chamber defined by battery housing 2 (“casing”) (see Fig. 1) includes a first volume and a second volume (i.e., “first and second compartments”) configured for containing the first and second constituents, respectively, (C3/L24-28; Fig. 1) [the container 9 (“at least one barrier”) divides the interior of the housing 2 into said first and second volumes/compartments], and wherein the second compartment containing the electrolyte 10 is located adjacent to the second end portion of the battery housing 2 (“battery casing”). It is noted regardless of which end portion of the battery casing is designated the “second end portion,” the second compartment containing the electrolyte 10 is considered to be located adjacent to (i.e., next to) said second end portion given the breadth of “adjacent to.”
Alternatively, in the instance that separator 4 is relied upon for the “permeable separator sheet” claimed, then the disc or any of the shim 11, pad 12, or pad 13 having the construct illustrated (i.e., an aperture disposed centrally and sized for a rod to fit therethrough) also reads on the “solid spacer element,” each being located between the first constituent (positive electrode 3) and separator 4 (which form concentric rings with shim 11, pad 12, and pad 13 being located therebetween).
The housing 2 (“casing”) constitutes the first terminal such that there are not separate entities of a housing 2 (“casing”) and a separate, first terminal; however, Hruden teaches analogous art of a deferred action electrochemical cell including an analogous metal can functioning as the negative electrode 12 that is provided separate from negative terminal plate 24 and then bonded thereto (Fig. 1; entire disclosure relied upon). Accordingly, Hruden teaches it is a known design construct to a deferred action cell such that it includes a cylindrical can 12 (“housing”) that is bonded to separate terminal plate 24 (“first terminal”) versus the integral, one-piece construction taught by Goebel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the housing 2 (“casing”) of Goebel such that it is in the format of a cylindrical housing part (i.e., analogous to zinc can 12 of Hruden constituting the claimed “casing”) bonded to a terminal plate (“a first terminal”) given the design and technique are known in the art as taught by Hruden, thereby providing the predictable result of allowing different metal choices for each constituent if desired depending upon the chemistry of the battery cell, the court holding that constructing a formerly integral structure into various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Goebel further fails to teach that the first constituent includes at least one of manganese dioxide, iron dioxide, or crystalline silver oxide. The first constituent of Goebel is taught as being a porous carbon element, wherein the concomitant use of a porous mixture of carbon and manganese dioxide for a positive electrode/cathode of an electrochemical cell is well known within the art as taught by Hruden (C2/L66-69). As would be immediately understood by those skilled in the art, Munshi teaches (or provides evidence) that one of ordinary skill in the art can select specific electrode compositions outside of those explicitly taught, as would be routine in the art:
While the preferred embodiments of the invention have been shown and described, modifications thereof can be made by one skilled in the art without departing from the spirit and teachings of the invention. The embodiments described herein are exemplary only, and are not intended to be limiting. For instance, while certain preferred lithium solid polymer electrolytes, and lithium polymer electrolyte batteries, electrodes, and components thereof are emphasized in the description and examples, the methods and compositions of the invention can be readily extended to any battery chemistry, both primary and secondary to provide other superior performance batteries (C32/L7-24) (emphasis mine).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to implement known cathode configurations such as a porous mixture of carbon and manganese dioxide in place of just the porous carbon mixture of Goebel as a routine endeavor in design in terms of providing a cell with a desired chemistry that meets voltage and output characteristics, costs, etc.
Furthermore, the court has held (MPEP § 2144.07):
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("…selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
Therefore, it is additionally considered an obvious expedient to select a known material (porous carbon and manganese dioxide) as taught by Hruden based on its suitability for its intended use (as a cathode material) for the cathode composition of Goebel based on the case law above, especially in view of or as evidenced by Munshi teaching that one skilled in the art is capable of selecting and implementing specific electrode compositions and battery chemistries within a given battery construct.
Regarding claim 3, Goebel fails to teach the second constituent (electrolyte) includes one of the species of electrolyte materials named. Hruden teaches analogous art of a deferred action electrochemical cell (the specific type of cell taught by Goebel) and that a known electrolyte material in a deferred action electrochemical cell may be at least one of water
or electrolyte fluid as the activating fluid (C1/L34-36; C2/L59-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to select water as the specific electrolyte material as taught by Hruden and implement a given battery chemistry as desired in view of the teaching (or evidence of Munshi) that such would be routine for one skilled in the art, and the case law demonstrating that the selection of a known material suitable for the intended use is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Goebel teaches that the container 9 (“at least one barrier”) includes a wall separating the first and second compartments (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Goebel teaches the container 9 (“at least one barrier”) may be broken by pressure upon the housing end 14 (C3/L59-62); thus, there is force applied to the portion of the battery so that the container 9 (“at least one barrier”) is configured for arrangement into the second configuration (broken configuration) from the first configuration (illustrated, sealed configuration). Goebel does not explicitly teach how the pressure is applied; however, it is the position of the Examiner that it would have to be one of the named options of (d), (e), (f), or (h). Furthermore, the claim is a product claim, whereas the claim is drawn to a method step of applying force in a specified way, wherein such a claim does not add any implicit or explicit structure to the claim set.
Regarding claim 9, Goebel teaches the battery including a conductive layer a metal support screen such as nickel or stainless steel (“a conductive layer”) (C2/L36-58) disposed within the chamber adjacent an inner surface of the housing 2 (“casing”) being configured for electrical communication with the first battery terminal (the housing 2 (“casing”) forms the first battery terminal);
the permeable separator sheet (shroud 15 or separator 4) disposed within the chamber and configured to electrically separate the electrolyte 10 when provided within the chamber from the conductive layer (i.e., both are porous, inert materials that do not allow electrical connection); and
a feedthrough member 7 in the form of a rod (“a conductive rod”) having a first end that constitutes the second battery terminal, and a second end configured for contacting with the electrolyte when provided in the chamber (see Fig. 1).
The feedthrough member 7 in the form of a rod (“conductive rod”) does not make electrical communication with a second entity that is the second battery terminal as it constitutes the second electrical terminal; however, the concomitant use of a conductive rod 20 with an anode cap 22 (“a second terminal”) is taught by Hruden.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to utilize an anode cap in conjunction with the conductive rod 7 of Goebel in order to provide the predictable results of increased sealing or enhanced electrical conduction via the terminal given a metal can be selected instead of carbon, the configuration being taught by Hruden and an immediately recognized option in terms of providing a terminal construct using a carbon rod.
Regarding claim 10, Goebel as modified by Hruden teaches the first battery terminal (separate bottom plate 24 – see rejection of claim 1) and the second battery terminal (top end of feedthrough 7) are disposed on the first and second end portions of the housing 2 (“casing”) (see rejection of claim 1 for deconstructing housing 2 into two portions as taught by Hruden).
Regarding claim 24, Goebel fails to disclose the battery housing 2 (“casing”) that constitutes the negative electrodes includes a polymeric material. Hruden teaches it a known technique to provide a polyethylene-lined jacket 36 concentric to the zinc can 12 functioning as the negative electrode (C2/L20-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the battery housing 2 (“casing”) functioning as the negative electrode such that it includes a polyethylene-lined jacket 36 as taught by Hruden given this provides the predictable result of only having the terminals at the end of the battery for electrical connection such that user safety is increased as the entire housing 2 (“casing”) is not electrically conductive in this design.
Regarding claim 25, Goebel fails to disclose the method of making the housing 2 (“casing”) (i.e., “is formed by at least one of extrusion moulding and injection moulding…”). The claim is entirely a product-by-process claim, wherein the Courts have held:
“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
There is no evidence that the product-by-process language as recited imparts specific structural characteristics to the product. As such, Goebel’s casing 2 (“housing”) appears to meet the structure set forth. Alternatively, any differences provided by the product-by-process limitation would provide a product that is obvious from the casing 2 (“housing”) of Goebel. Regarding product-by-process limitation, see MPEP § 2113.
9. The alternative rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goebel (4,517,736) in view of Hruden et al. (US 3,376,166), and either further in view of or evidenced by Munshi (US 6,664,006) as applied to at least claim 1, and further in view of Bakker (WO 2017/153831) (copy previously provided) is maintained.
Regarding claim 5, Goebel teaches the container 9 (“at least one barrier”) may be broken by pressure upon the housing end 14 (C3/L59-62); thus, there is force applied to the portion of the battery so that the container 9 (“at least one barrier”) is configured for arrangement into the second configuration (broken configuration) from the first configuration (illustrated, sealed configuration). Goebel does not explicitly teach how the pressure is applied; however, it is the position of the Examiner that it would have to be one of the named options of (d), (e), (f), or (h). Furthermore, the claim is a product claim, whereas the claim is drawn to a method step of applying force in a specified way, wherein such a claim does not add any implicit or explicit structure to the claim set.
For compact prosecution purposes, in the instance it can be demonstrated that the force can be applied in another manner than those recited and this application of force provides structure not be my Goebel, the following analysis is provided.
In the same field of endeavor, Bakker teaches analogous art of a liquid-activatable battery that allows the battery to be stored in an inactive state until a desired time, wherein Bakker teaches an analogous envelope (“at least one barrier”) that is configured for arrangement into the second configuration from a first configuration to allow the electrolyte within the chamber to mix with the electrolyte powder (P12/P3), wherein suitable, alternative options in terms of how to apply the force are detailed below:
PNG
media_image1.png
422
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to apply the force to the battery of Goebel by any of the methods above including twisting, sliding, elastic and/or inelastic deformation, etc. given Bakker teaches these are known manners in which to apply the force to an analogous deferred action battery such that the analogous envelope (“at least one barrier”) is configured for arrangement into the second configuration from a first configuration to allow the electrolyte within the chamber to mix with the electrolyte powder (P12/P3).
10. The rejection of claims 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goebel (4,517,736) in view of Hruden et al. (US 3,376,166), and either further in view of or evidenced by Munshi (US 6,664,006) as applied to at least claim 1, and further in view of Specker (US 3,904,437) is maintained.
Regarding claim 6, Goebel as modified by Hruden teaches the first constituent includes a porous carbon construct and manganese dioxide (i.e., “includes a powder composition” – intrinsic to the included manganese dioxide particles); neither reference discloses the powder composition comprises disintegrant particles.
In the same field of endeavor, Specker teaches analogous art of a battery of similar chemistry as Goebel and Hruden and teaches the incorporation of various gelatinous paste-type materials formed from starch, flour, or methyl cellulose (i.e., “disintegrate materials”),which may be used either unsupported or supported by paper similar back backing or substrate material” (C1/L55-59). The starch particles (“disintegrate particles”) of Specker are described as achieving the function of gelatinizing and swelling by action of the cell electrolyte, whereby the greater tackiness achieved by said starch particles helps improve intimate and wet contact among the components of the anode, cathode, and separator, with the starch swelling unconfined in the electrolyte solution to 10x the dry particle volume (C7/L57-C9/L10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include the starch particles (“disintegrant particles”) of Specker within the cathode composition (“first constituent”) given Specker teaches such a material in an analogous configuration and that it provides the desirable effects of improving the intimate and wet contact among the cathode, andoe, and separator by way of the tackiness achieved by the starch particles (C7/L57-C9/L10).
Regarding claim 7, Goebel as modified by Hruden fails to disclose the powder composition includes a compressed powder composition; however, Specker teaches an analogous mix cake 12 of manganese dioxide particles (MnO2) mixed with carbon and electrolyte wet mixture and that it is provided as a “conventional compressed cathode structure” (C3/L20-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the powder composition of modified Goebel such that it is a compressed powder composition given the construct and technique is known in the art as taught by Specker ( (C3/L20-44) and provides the predictable result of allowing for more material to be provided within a given space.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claim 67, and thus dependent claim 68, would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (i.e., assuming “misaligned” is changed to “non-aligned” within claim 67 to address the 112(a)/first paragraph issue- see P119 of the PGPUB).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach the construct presented in the combined claims of 1-4-67. Claim 5 would have to be corrected to only include options (a) and (b) as these are the only applicable forces applied to this configuration (see P119 of the PGPUB).
None of the references cited above or to date by the Examiner teaches the construct presented in the combination of claims 1-4-67. In an update of the prior art search, the closest prior art to the features presented in claim 67 is considered to be Bakker (US 2017/0170488) (same inventor of the instant application) describing a water-activated battery comprising end portion 101B moveably attached to a cylindrical section 101(A) of the casing that has openings 200C that are configured to move between alignment and non-alignment with an opening disposed in the cylindrical section 101A such that the ingress of water is allowed by submerging the battery in water (P107-110). This configuration does not meet claim 1 in which the water (a “second constituent” option) is included in the battery construct along with the second compartment containing the second constituent, nor is there a second rigid planar disc comprising a second plurality of holes that allows for alignment/non-alignment with the first plurality of holes of a first rigid planar disc.
The following prior art references are considered noteworthy in terms the state of the prior art, but fall short of meeting the necessary teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation to arrive at the 1-4-67 claimed construct:
Bakker (US 2012/0148882); Gold (US 2,783,291); Kaye (US 3,663,302); Bolles et al. (US 3,653,972); and Liaw et al. (US 2017/0092961).
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/2026 have been fully considered.
With regard to the prior Office Action rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph regarding the terminal issue:
The Examiner has reconsidered this position. On pages 11-13, Applicant presents an analysis with respect to the first and second embodiments; it is noted this is not persuasive as the claimed construct is only met by the third embodiment (Figs. 21-23); see Claim Analysis Section above, entirely incorporated into this response and not repeated here.
Applicant argues that with respect to the third embodiment (Figs. 21-23), the face of element 320 may abut against the conductive securement member 110 or the conductive lining 106 (i.e., similar to the spring 120 in the second embodiment – see Fig. 20) to form an electrical connection. While the third embodiment describes no materials that wall 320 (“at least one barrier”) or water-tight compartment 310 are made of, the Examiner has reconsidered her position and a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand these entities would have to be made of an electrically conductive material to mate with conductive terminal 103 (not labeled in Fig. 23 but illustrated) to form a terminal construct to provide a functional battery. For this reason, the rejection is withdrawn.
With regard to the maintained prior art rejection:
Applicant argues that Goebel fails to disclose or suggest the language of, “…wherein the second compartment is located adjacent to the second end portion of the battery casing.” Goebel teaches the chamber defined by battery housing 2 (“casing”) (see Fig. 1) includes a first volume and a second volume (i.e., “first and second compartments”) configured for containing the first and second constituents, respectively, (C3/L24-28; Fig. 1). The container 9 (“at least one barrier”) divides the interior of the housing 2 into said first and second volumes/compartments, wherein the second compartment containing the electrolyte 10 is located adjacent to the second end portion of the battery housing 2 (“battery casing”). It is noted regardless of which end portion of the battery casing is designated the “second end portion,” the second compartment containing the electrolyte 10 is considered to be located adjacent to (i.e., next to) said second end portion given the breadth of “adjacent to.” It is unclear to the Examiner how the amended feature is not present in Goebel; the second compartment containing electrolyte 10 is adjacent to, or next to, both end portions of the battery casing as shown in Fig. 1 of Goebel.
Conclusion
13. The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is repeated here.
Barker et al. (WO 2014/090163) teaches manganese oxide, iron oxide, and crystalline silver oxide as immediately recognized functionally equivalent options, readily substitutable one for the other, by one having ordinary skill in the art (Barker, P19, 71):
[0019] Preferably, the first end of the conductive rod may extend outwardly of the first end of the tube via an aperture disposed in the first end cap. Preferably, the second end of the conductive rod may be substantially embedded within the electrolyte powder mixture. Typically, the conductive rod may include at least one of a brass, a carbon a stainless steel materia! and a combination thereof. [0020] Preferably, the electrolyte powder mixture may include a metal oxide powder. Typically, the metal oxide may include at least one of an activated carbon, manganese dioxide, iron oxide and crystalline silver oxide.
[0071] The electrolyte powder mixture (8) includes a metal oxide powder such as manganese dioxide, iron oxide or crystalline silver oxide which substantially fills the chamber (2d) of the tube (2). In preferred embodiments, the electrolyte powder mixture (8) includes approximately 3% ammonium chloride particles, 16% zinc chloride particles, 68% manganese dioxide particles, 12.4% acetylene carbon black particles and 0.6% zinc oxide particles by percentage weight of the electrolyte powder mixture (8).
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BARROW whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached on (571) 272-1481. 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.
/AMANDA J BARROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 Note a rod is not actually set forth in the claim; the limitation only requires there to be an aperture that has a size capable of allowing a rod to fit therethrough. It is not until claim 9 that a rod is positively set forth in the claim.