DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 are currently presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the number of …” when this is the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Regarding claims 1-17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-16 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claim 17 is directed to a system, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-17 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1 and 17 recite the abstract idea of simulating a thermal model of a battery, constituting an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of "applying a thermal model in order to obtain a time-discrete temperature characteristic of the battery,” covers mental processes including making a judgement about how to set up a specific model that will be used for an evaluation. Additionally, the limitation of “wherein the thermal model comprises the following: a thermal cell model for cells of the battery, an air model for heat exchange between the cells of the battery and ambient air, and a thermal system model for heat exchange between the cells of the battery and a respective environment,” covers mental processes including making a judgement about how to set up the thermal model. Additionally, the limitation of “wherein, when the thermal model is used for a time-step, a cell temperature of the cells of the battery is determined by means of the thermal cell model as a function of an air temperature of the ambient air obtained from the air model in a previous time-step and as a function of an ambient heat flow obtained from the thermal system model in preceding time-step, and wherein, when the thermal model is used for the time-step, the air temperature of the ambient air of the air model and the ambient heat flow of the thermal system model are determined as a function of the cell temperature of the cells of the battery.”, covers mental processes including setting up the conditions for evaluation of the thermal model and evaluating it. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-16 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claims 1 and 17, the additional element of “a processor”, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The additional limitations of “implementing a potentiometric measurement to determine a the coefficient of entropy of the reversible portion” in claim 2, as well as “wherein implementing the potentiometric measurement comprises: applying a temperature jump at each of a plurality of temperatures, respectively, and measuring a change in open-circuit voltage of each respective cell” in claim 3, as well as “wherein the potentiometric measurement is implemented for a plurality of states of charge of the cells and/or as a function of a charge or discharge direction in order to determine the coefficient of entropy for the several states of charge” in claim 4, as well as “implementing a calorimetric measurement to determine a heat capacity of the thermal cell model of the cells” in claim 9, as well as “implementing a thermal impedance spectroscopy to determine an anisotropic heat transfer coefficient of the thermal cell model of the cells” in claim 10, as well as “implementing an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy measurement to determine the number of two or more RC circuits of the electrical cell model” in claim 12, as well as “implementing an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy measurement and/or a current pulse characterization measurement and/or a measurement of a dynamic stress test to determine a parameterization of the equivalent circuit of the electrical cell model” in claim 13, as well as “wherein the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy measurement is implemented in the frequency domains which are represented in an operating profile of the battery” in claim 14 can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-16 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claims 1 and 17, the additional element of “a processor”, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The additional limitations of “implementing a potentiometric measurement to determine a the coefficient of entropy of the reversible portion” in claim 2, as well as “wherein implementing the potentiometric measurement comprises: applying a temperature jump at each of a plurality of temperatures, respectively, and measuring a change in open-circuit voltage of each respective cell” in claim 3, as well as “wherein the potentiometric measurement is implemented for a plurality of states of charge of the cells and/or as a function of a charge or discharge direction in order to determine the coefficient of entropy for the several states of charge” in claim 4, as well as “implementing a calorimetric measurement to determine a heat capacity of the thermal cell model of the cells” in claim 9, as well as “implementing a thermal impedance spectroscopy to determine an anisotropic heat transfer coefficient of the thermal cell model of the cells” in claim 10, as well as “implementing an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy measurement to determine the number of two or more RC circuits of the electrical cell model” in claim 12, as well as “implementing an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy measurement and/or a current pulse characterization measurement and/or a measurement of a dynamic stress test to determine a parameterization of the equivalent circuit of the electrical cell model” in claim 13, as well as “wherein the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy measurement is implemented in the frequency domains which are represented in an operating profile of the battery” in claim 14 can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. This is akin to testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 is directed to further defining the portions of the models, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 5 is directed to further defining the heat dissipation model and the spatial dimensions of the model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 6 is directed to further defining the spatial dimensions of the model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 7 is directed to further defining the thermal model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 8 is directed to further defining the parameters of the model and heat exchange, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 11 is directed to further defining an electrical model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 15 is directed to further defining the current of the system, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 16 is directed to further defining the voltage of the system, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
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 1-5, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allart et al. “Thermal model of battery for high capacity energy storage systems”, in view of Juang et al. USPPN 2018/0086222.
Regarding claim 1, Allart teaches applying a thermal model in order to obtain a time-discrete temperature characteristic of the battery, (Section 2, Figures 1-4 and 7, a thermal model of a battery with cells at discrete times is used)
wherein the thermal model comprises the following: a thermal cell model for cells of the battery, (Sections 2-4, a thermal model of the battery cell is used)
an air model for heat exchange between the cells of the battery and ambient air, and (Sections 2B-2C and 4, heat is transmitted to the air between the cells of the battery)
a thermal system model for heat exchange between the cells of the battery and a respective environment, (Sections 2-4, Figures 4, 6 and 7, heat exchange is modeled between the cells of the battery and the air/battery environment around them)
wherein, when the thermal model is used for a time-step, a cell temperature of the cells of the battery is determined by means of the thermal cell model as a function of an air temperature of the ambient air obtained from the air model … and, as a function of an ambient heat flow obtained from the thermal system model in …, and (Sections 2-3 , Figures 4 and 7, the cell temperature is determined in each timestep as a function of air and ambient heat in the model)
wherein, when the thermal model is used for the time-step, the air temperature of the ambient air of the air model and the ambient heat flow of the thermal system model are determined as a function of the cell temperature of the cells of the battery. (Sections 2-3 and 5, the cell temperature influences both the air and ambient heat flows)
Allart does not explicitly teach a processor, in a previous timestep
Juang teaches a processor ([0029], [0063], a processor is used)
in a previous timestep, ([0032]-[0034], [0042], [0046]-[0048], the system maintains the inputs from the electrical and thermal models of the battery from the previous iteration (timestep))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Allart with Juang as the references deal with characterizing the thermal response of batteries, in order to implement a system takes into account data from the previous timestep. Juang would modify Allart by taking into account data from the previous timesteps. The benefit of doing so is the method captures the battery nonlinearity, takes the temperature dependency into account, and does not require foreknowledge of battery physical parameters. (Juang [0032])
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Allart and Juang teach the limitations of claim 1. Allart also teaches wherein the thermal cell model comprises a heat generation model with an irreversible portion as a function of an electrical cell voltage and the cell current flow of the cells of the battery, and (Section 2C, an irreversible portion contains both a cell voltage (ohms law) and current flow of the battery)
a reversible portion as a function of a coefficient of entropy, a temperature, and the electrical cell voltage, and (Sections 2c-3c, Figure 5, a reversible portion with entropy temperature and cell voltage is used)
wherein the method further comprises implementing a potentiometric measurement to determine the coefficient of entropy of the reversible portion. (Section 3C, Figure 5, a potentiometric measurement is used in the reversible portion to determine entropy)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Allart and Juang teach the limitations of claim 2. Allart also teaches wherein implementing the potentiometric measurement comprises: applying a temperature jump at each of a plurality of temperatures, respectively, and measuring a change in open-circuit voltage of each respective cell (Section 3c and Figure 5, a temperature jump is applied and open circuit voltage is measured)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Allart and Juang teach the limitations of claim 2. Allart also teaches wherein the potentiometric measurement is implemented for a plurality of states of charge of the cells and/or as a function of a charge or discharge direction in order to determine the coefficient of entropy for the several states of charge. (Section 3c and Figure 5, the potentiometric measurement is done with a plurality of states of charge)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Allart and Juang teach the limitations of claim 1. Allart also teaches wherein the thermal cell model comprises a heat dissipation model for the cells of the battery, (Section 2, a heat dissipation model is used)
wherein the method further comprises: determining a spatial domain dimensionality of the heat dissipation model of the thermal cell model by means of simulative or experimental investigation of spatial domain temperature gradients in the cells, and/or as a function of a cell type, and/or as a function of a cooling system of the battery, and/or as a function of a measured operating profile of the cell, and/or as a function of a calorimeter measurement. (Section 2-3, a spatial dimensionality between 0-1 is determined for emissivity, the type of the cell is used and the cooling system of air is taken into account)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Allart and Juang teach the limitations of claim 1. Allart also teaches implementing a calorimetric measurement to determine a heat capacity of the thermal cell model of the cells. (Section 3A, a calorimetric measurement to determine heat capacity is used)
In regards to claim 17, it is the system embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1.
Claims 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allart, in view of Juang, in view of Fleckenstein et al. “Thermal Impedance Spectroscopy - A method for the thermal characterization of high power battery cells.”
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Allart and Juang teach the limitations of claim 5. Allart teaches wherein the heat dissipation model of the thermal cell model is defined analytically for a spatial domain dimensionality of OD (Section 2C, a 0D dimensionality is used)
The combination of Allart and Juang does not explicitly teach is defined numerically with finite elements for a spatial domain dimensionality of 1D, 2D, or 3D.
Fleckenstein teaches is defined numerically with finite elements for a spatial domain dimensionality of 1D, 2D, or 3D. (Figure 4, Sections 4.1 and 5, one dimensional finite elements are used)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Allart and Juang with Fleckenstein as the references deal with characterizing the thermal response of batteries, in order to implement a system that uses a 1D finite elements. Fleckenstein would modify Allart and Juang by using a 1D finite elements. The benefit of doing so is the complex battery setup can be exactly thermally modeled with simple 1D elements. (Fleckenstein Section 8)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Allart and Juang teach the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Allart and Juang does not explicitly teach a heat exchange between the cells of the battery as a function of a predefined geometric arrangement of cells with respect to one another, a heat exchange of the cells of the battery with a solid body cooling element as a function of a predefined geometric arrangement of cells with respect to the solid body cooling element, and/or a heat exchange of the cells with a fluidic cooling element as a function of a predefined arrangement of cells with respect to the fluidic cooling element.
Fleckenstein teaches a heat exchange between the cells of the battery as a function of a predefined geometric arrangement of cells with respect to one another, a heat exchange of the cells of the battery with a solid body cooling element as a function of a predefined geometric arrangement of cells with respect to the solid body cooling element, and/or a heat exchange of the cells with a fluidic cooling element as a function of a predefined arrangement of cells with respect to the fluidic cooling element. (Section 4.2 Figure 3, a heat exchange between the batteries based on their geometric arrangement is taught)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Allart and Juang with Fleckenstein as the references deal with characterizing the thermal response of batteries, in order to implement a system that characterizes heat exchange based on the geometric arrangement of the cells. Fleckenstein would modify Allart and Juang by characterizing heat exchange based on the geometric arrangement of the cells. The benefit of doing so is the heat flow from one battery to another can be quantified. (Fleckenstein Section 4.2)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Allart, Juang and Fleckenstein teach the limitations of claim 1. Allart teaches initializing a parameterization of contact resistances and/or thermal capacities of: (Section 2, contact resistance and thermal capacity are initialized)
the heat exchange of the cells with the fluidic cooling element, based on predefined reference values, and (Sexruib 2-3, a Stefan-Boltzmann constant is used)
with air flowing through of the cells of the battery in order to adapt the parameterization after initialization. (Sections 2-4, air flows through the batteries with a two-hour relaxation after initialization)
The combination of Allart and Juang does not explicitly teach the heat exchange between the cells of the battery, implementing a heating measurement of a reference matrix arrangement
Fleckenstein teaches the heat exchange between the cells of the battery, … implementing a heating measurement of a reference matrix arrangement (Section 4.2 and 5, Figure 3, a heat exchange between the batteries based on their geometric arrangement is taught using a matrix to characterize the system)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Allart and Juang with Fleckenstein as the references deal with characterizing the thermal response of batteries, in order to implement a system that characterizes heat exchange based on the geometric arrangement of the cells based on a reference matrix arrangement. Fleckenstein would modify Allart and Juang by characterizing heat exchange based on the geometric arrangement of the cells based on a reference matrix arrangement. The benefit of doing so is the heat flow from one battery to another can be quantified. Additionally, the conventional reference arrangement can benefit thermal characterization of the battery cells during operation (Fleckenstein Section 4.2 and 8)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Allart, Juang and Fleckenstein teach the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Allart and Juang does not explicitly teach implementing a thermal impedance spectroscopy to determine an anisotropic heat transfer coefficient of the thermal cell model of the cells.
Fleckenstein teaches implementing a thermal impedance spectroscopy to determine an anisotropic heat transfer coefficient of the thermal cell model of the cells. (Abstract, Sections 4 and 4.1, a TIS method is used to characterize the heat transfer coefficients of the cells)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Allart and Juang with Fleckenstein as the references deal with characterizing the thermal response of batteries, in order to implement a system that uses thermal impedance spectroscopy to determine an anisotropic heat transfer coefficient of the thermal cell model of the cells. Fleckenstein would modify Allart and Juang by using thermal impedance spectroscopy to determine an anisotropic heat transfer coefficient of the thermal cell model of the cells. The benefit of doing so is the heat flow from one battery to another can be quantified. (Fleckenstein Section 4.2)
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allart, in view of Juang, in view of Sun et al. “Modeling Study for Li-ion Batteries Considering High-frequency Inductance Characteristics Based on Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy.”
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Allart and Juang teach the limitations of claim 1. Allart also teaches using an electrical model to obtain a time-discrete dependency of cell voltage and cell current flow for the cells of the battery, (Sections 1, 2C, 3 and 5, voltage of the battery at discrete timesteps is measured; Sections 1-3, current at discrete timesteps is measured)
wherein the electrical model comprises: an electrical cell model for cells of the battery, (Sections 2-3, the electrical characteristics of the cells is taken into account)
an electrical system model for a current flow between, and (Sections 1-3, current at discrete timesteps is measured)
a voltage over cell strings and/or cells of the battery, (Sections 1, 2C, 3 and 5, voltage of the battery at discrete timesteps is measured)
wherein the cell voltage and the cell current flow are used as an input for a heat generation model of the thermal cell model. (Sections 2 and 3, voltage and current are inputs to the thermal model)
The combination of Allart and Juang does not explicitly teach wherein the electrical cell model has an electrical equivalent circuit with a series connection of an inductance, of a resistance, and two or more RC circuits, wherein the electrical cell model further has an ideal voltage source for an open circuit voltage dependent on the state of charge,
Sun teaches wherein the electrical cell model has an electrical equivalent circuit with a series connection of an inductance, of a resistance, and two or more RC circuits, (Figure 1-2, Sections 2-3, an equivalent circuit with an inductance, a resistance and multiple RC circuits is used)
wherein the electrical cell model further has an ideal voltage source for an open circuit voltage dependent on the state of charge, (Figure 1-2, Sections 2-3, an ideal voltage source is used)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Allart and Juang with Sun as the references deal with characterizing the response of batteries, in order to implement a system that uses an ideal voltage source and electrical equivalent circuits that are determined by EIS. Sun would modify Allart and Juang by using an ideal voltage source and electrical equivalent circuits. The benefit of doing so is the model order is better and the number of parameters is reduced by half and are easier to obtain. (Sun Section 2.1)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Allart, Juang and Sun teach the limitations of claim 11. The combination of Allart and Juang does not explicitly teach implementing an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy measurement to determine the number of two or more RC circuits of the electrical cell model.
Sun teaches implementing an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy measurement to determine the number of two or more RC circuits of the electrical cell model. (Abstract, Sections 1-3, Figures 1 and 2, electrochemical impedance spectroscopy is used to create the RC circuits)
See motivation of claim 11
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Allart, Juang and Sun teach the limitations of claim 11. The combination of Allart and Juang does not explicitly teach implementing an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy measurement and/or a current pulse characterization measurement and/or a measurement of a dynamic stress test to determine a parameterization of the equivalent circuit of the electrical cell model.
Sun teaches implementing an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy measurement and/or a current pulse characterization measurement and/or a measurement of a dynamic stress test to determine a parameterization of the equivalent circuit of the electrical cell model. (Abstract, Sections 1-3, Figures 1 and 2, electrochemical impedance spectroscopy is used to create the RC circuits including their parameters)
See motivation of claim 11
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Allart, Juang and Sun teach the limitations of claim 12. The combination of Allart and Juang does not explicitly teach wherein the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy measurement is implemented in the frequency domains which are represented in an operating profile of the battery.
Sun teaches wherein the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy measurement is implemented in the frequency domains which are represented in an operating profile of the battery. (Abstract, Sections 1-3, the EIS measurement is done in the frequency domain)
See motivation of claim 11
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Allart, Juang and Sun teach the limitations of claim 11. The combination of Allart and Juang does not explicitly teach implementing a relaxation current measurement and/or a constant current measurement to determine a parameterization of the ideal voltage source.
Sun teaches implementing a relaxation current measurement and/or a constant current measurement to determine a parameterization of the ideal voltage source. (Sections 1, 2.1 and 3, constant current is used for the characterization of the ideal voltage source)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Allart and Juang with Sun as the references deal with characterizing the response of batteries, in order to implement a system that uses an constant current measurement to determine a parameterization of the ideal voltage source. Sun would modify Allart and Juang by using an constant current measurement to determine a parameterization of the ideal voltage source. The benefit of doing so is the model order is better and the number of parameters is reduced by half and are easier to obtain. (Sun Section 2.1)
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Allart, Juang and Sun teach the limitations of claim 11. The combination of Allart and Juang does not explicitly teach wherein the ideal voltage source determines the open-circuit voltage with a hysteresis associated with a direction of the current flow.
Sun teaches wherein the ideal voltage source determines the open-circuit voltage with a hysteresis associated with a direction of the current flow. (Figures 1 and 2, Sections 1, 2.1 and 3, a current flow is used to determine the open circuit voltage)
See motivation of claim 15
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
최종우. Development of a Thermal Management System Model and a Capacity Fade Model for Li-ion Batteries in Electric Vehicles. Diss. 서울대학교 대학원, 2013.: Also teaches the thermal characterization of battery cells under various cooling conditions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188