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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/26/2026 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.
Specification
2. The objection to the specification is withdrawn on the basis of the amendments filed to the claims removing new terminology not found in the instant application written description.
Drawings
3. The objection to the drawings is withdrawn on the basis of the amendments filed to the claims removing new terminology not found in the instant application written description with appropriate corresponding reference numerals in the drawings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The rejections of claim 1, and thus dependent claims 4-15; and claim 15 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112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed.
The rejections of claim 1, and thus dependent claims 4-15; newly added claim 14, and thus dependent claim 15; and newly added claim 15; under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed.
5. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites, “wherein the inner pouch…” in each of lines 1 and 21 (it appears twice). The parent claim defines a first sealed inner pouch and a second sealed inner pouch. The claim is indefinite as it is not clear which (or both) of these (sealed) (first and/or second) inner pouches is being referenced in each of the lines 1 and 2 of claim 18. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear rendering it indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. The rejection of claims 1 and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwon et al. (US 2016/0099454) is withdrawn in view of the amendments filed. All rejections pending from this are also withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 35 USC § 103
7. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmid-Schoenbein (US 2018/0175346), and alternatively under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Schmid-Schoenbein (US 2018/0175346) as evidenced by the dictionary entry for “discontinuity” from Cambridge Online Dictionary is updated to remove the evidential reference. Additionally, claims 4, 11-14 and 18 are also rejected under this heading. Thus:
Claims 1, 4, 11-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmid-Schoenbein (US 2018/0175346), and alternatively under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Schmid-Schoenbein (US 2018/0175346).
Regarding claim 1, Schmid-Schoenbein teaches a battery cell 100 (Fig. 2), comprising:
at least two battery units 3A, 3B, etc. (Figs. 1a-1c; annotated below), each including a plurality of electrode leads (7, 8), an electrode assembly 5, an electrolyte solution and a pocket 12 (“an inner pouch”) in which the electrode assembly 5 and the electrolyte solution are received (P20, 81-96), wherein at least one of the plurality of electrode leads (7 or 8) of a first battery unit 3A of the at least two battery units is inserted into a second battery unit 3B of the at least two battery units and electrically connected to the electrode assembly of the second battery unit (P88-96; Figs. 1b-1c); and
an enclosure 20 (“an outer pouch”) including a first enclosure half 20a (“a lower cover”), a second enclosure half 20b (“an upper cover”), and a bending portion [see Figs. 1c, 3E; (collectively at least the area of 14a + 140a) – note this can be interpreted to include one or more of these respective portions located between respective battery units], the first enclosure half 20a (“lower cover”) including at least two receiving portions receiving the at least two battery units, respectively (Figs. 2-3),
wherein the bending portion (see Figs. 1b-1c, 3E) is located between the at least two receiving portions and a part of the at least one of the plurality of electrode leads 7, 8 is disposed in the bending portion (Figs. 1c, 3E),
wherein the bending portion (collectively the area of 14a + 140a) has a sealing region (140a) where the upper cover and the lower cover are (directly) attached to each other and sealed (P102), and a non-sealing region (e.g. external-facing surfaces thereof) where the upper enclosure half 20a and the lower enclosure half 20b are not sealed (Fig. 2),
wherein the bending portion is configured to bend at the sealing region and the non-sealing region (see Fig. 3E),
wherein the pocket 12A (“inner pouch”) of the first battery unit 3A includes a first upper sheet 3a and a first lower sheet 3b (Fig. 1a) sealed to one another (P86) along outer peripheries of the first upper sheet 3a and the first lower sheet 3b to form a sealed pocket 12 (“a sealed first inner pouch”),
wherein the pocket 12B (“inner pouch”) of the second battery unit 3B includes a second upper sheet 3a' and a second lower sheet 3b' sealed to one another along outer peripheries of the second upper sheet and the second lower sheet to form a sealed pocked 12B (“a sealed second inner pouch”), and
wherein the sealed pocket 12A (“sealed first inner pouch”) and the sealed pocket 12B (“sealed second inner pouch”) are “spatially separated from one another” (P86; see also P20, P39) at the bending portion (collectively 14a + 140a) of the outer pouch 20 (Figs. 1-3; entire disclosure relied upon).
The sealed inner pouches 12 are labeled 12A, 12B and 12C for the respective battery units 3A, 3B, and 3C within Fig. 1a for clarity:
PNG
media_image1.png
523
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim is a product-by-process claim due the limitation of “thermally welding” with respect to the first upper and lower sheets (3a, 3b) are thermally welded along their outer peripheries, and the second upper and lower sheets (3a', 3b') are thermally welded along their outer peripheries. The limitation is evaluated solely for the implicit or explicit structure provided to the product claim. Schmid-Schoenbein teaches the pouch film halves (i.e., upper and lower sheets 3a, 3b; 3a', 3b') are joined together via sealing seams and sealed to one another (P39, 44, 86). The structure of sealing seams sealed to one another would appear to provide a structure that fully anticipates any structure implicit to “thermally welding” of the layers Alternatively, any differences provided by the product-by-process limitation would provide a product that is obvious from the sealed layers of Schmid-Schoenbein. Regarding product-by-process limitation, see MPEP § 2113.
Furthermore, with respect to seams provided to the enclosure 20 (“outer pouch”), Schmid-Schoenbein teaches the enclosure halves are sealed or welded to one another for sealing purposes, with a described advantage of the technique of welding being that exact weld seams with very high quality can be present (P33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to implement the specific product-by-process limitation of thermally welding to achieve the sealed seams that define respective pockets 12A-12C given Schmid-Schoenbein teaches the technique is a known technique taught with respect to providing sealed seams to the enclosure 20 (“outer pouch”), thereby providing the predictable, taught advantage of providing exact weld seams with very high quality can be present (P33).
Regarding claim 4, Schmid-Schoenbein teaches wherein the sealing region (140a) or the non-sealing region of the bending portion (interpreted to include at least two of the respective bending areas of (14a + 140) between respective battery units such that the sealing region has the same interpretation of multiple sealing regions) has a bending structure (i.e., a first bending structure and a second bending structure- consistent with how claim 11 allows for a sealing region to subsequently comprise multiple sealing regions) that is bent at least two times (see Figs. 1-3; entire disclosure relied upon). It is noted that an alternative, compact prosecution rejection is additionally set forth against this claim below.
Regarding claim 11, Schmid-Schoenbein teaches wherein the sealing region 140 includes a first sealing region (i.e., seam 140 located between 3A and 3B) and a second sealing region (i.e., seam 140 located between 3B and 3C), and wherein the non-sealing region (the external-facing surfaces of 20a, 20b where the upper enclosure half 20a and the lower enclosure half 20b are not sealed) (Fig. 2) is disposed between the first sealing region (seam 140 between 3A and 3B) and the second sealing region seam 140 between 3B and 3C (Figs. 1-3; entire disclosure relied upon).
Regarding claim 12, Schmid-Schoenbein teaches wherein the plurality of electrode leads (7, 8) extend in a front-rear direction (as a three-dimensional object, this is intrinsically always going to met), and the non-sealing region (the external-facing surfaces of 20a, 20b where the upper enclosure half 20a and the lower enclosure half 20b are not sealed) (Fig. 2) has a strip shape extending from a left end to a right end of the outer pouch 20 in a direction that intersects the front- rear direction (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 13, Schmid-Schoenbein teaches wherein the non-sealing region (the external-facing surfaces of 20a, 20b where the upper enclosure half 20a and the lower enclosure half 20b are not sealed) (Fig. 2) is where the upper cover 20a and the lower cover 20b are not thermally welded (i.e., no thermal welding occurs on these external faces).
Regarding claim 14, Schmid-Schoenbein teaches wherein the first lower sheet 3b has a first internal space (see Fig. 1a) to receive the electrode assembly 5 and the electrolyte solution of the first battery unit 3A (P83, 87; Fig. 1A), and
wherein the second lower sheet 3b' has a second internal space to receive the electrode assembly 5 and the electrolyte solution of the second battery unit (P83, 87; Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 18, Schmid-Schoenbein teaches wherein the pouch film 3 may comprise a laminate comprising at least one plastic such as polyethylene and polypropylene, and wherein “the pouch film 3 comprises for example, no aluminum, in particular no metal” (P85; see also P22-24) (i.e., “the inner pouch does not include a metal layer” as claimed). It is noted that while Schmid-Schoenbein explicitly teaches embodiments that do not include a metal layer as part of the pouch film, Schmid-Schoenbein also teaches an alternative embodiment in which the metal layer may be included (P85).
Schmid-Schoenbein further teaches the pouch film is a composite or laminate composed of polyamide, PP, PET, and/or PP in which metal may be excluded (P12, P85). The instant disclosure teaches that the hot melt layer may be constituted of PP or PE, and the insulating layer may be formed from PET (P51 of the instant application PGPUB). Accordingly, the above materials for the composite or laminate that forms the pouch film is considered to meet the claim requirements of the inner pouch includes a hot melt layer and an insulating layer, and the inner pouch does not include a metal layer, as claimed.
8. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid-Schoenbein (US 2018/0175346) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (“Kwon2”) (US 2016/0093838).
Regarding claim 4, Schmid-Schoenbein teaches wherein the sealing region or the non-sealing region of the bending portion has a bending structure that is bent at least two times (see interpretation set forth above). Addressing the construct shown in the drawings, in an alternative rejection of the subject matter, Schmid-Schoenbein does not teach that a (singular) bending portion, within the sealing region or the non-sealing region thereof, has a bending structure that is bent at least two times.
In the same field of endeavor, Kwon2 teaches analogous art of a flexible, bending electrochemical device including a bending/sealing region 120 between adjacent batteries and that it is a known technique to provide the bending structure such that it is bent at least two times (Fig. 6-7; entire disclosure relied upon) in order to allow multiple bends to be effectively applied to any type of electronic devices and to allow the battery units to be disposed in a variety of locations relative to one another (P65). Figs. 6-7 of Kwon2 are reproduced below for convenience (see also at least Figs. 28-29, 34-35 of Kwon2):
PNG
media_image2.png
492
414
media_image2.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 provide the (singular) bending portion (collective 140a – 14a) of Kwon in the sealing region and/or non-sealing region such that it is bent at least two times given Kwon2 teaches an analogous configuration with this known technique applied, thereby providing the advantageous and predictable result of allowing the battery cell to be effectively applied to any type of electronic devices and to allow the battery units to be disposed in a variety of locations relative to one another (P65).
Regarding claim 5, Schmid-Schoenbein fails to disclose wherein, among the plurality of electrodes, an electrode lead (7, 8)) disposed at the bending portion includes a multi-bent portion bent at least two times.
As detailed above, in the same field of endeavor, Kwon2 teaches analogous art of a flexible, bending electrochemical device including a bending/sealing region 120 between adjacent batteries including a bending structure bent at least two times and that it is known to also provide the electrode leads disposed at the bending portion such that they include a multi-bent portion bent at least two times and matching the multi-bent bending portion ((at least Figs. 28-29, 34-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the electrode lead(s) (7, 8) disposed at the bending portion to include a multi-bent portion that is bent at least two times in order that the multi-bend bending portion can be provided while maintain an electrical connection between/among the battery units, the multi-bent bending portion to allow for the battery cell to be effectively applied to any type of electronic devices and to allow the battery units to be disposed in a variety of locations relative to one another (P65).
9. Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid-Schoenbein (US 2018/0175346) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2016/0204479).
Regarding claims 8-10, Schmid-Schoenbein teaches a battery pack (Fig. 8) comprising: at least one battery cell according to claim 1; and a printed circuit board (PCB) (P119).
Schmid-Schoenbein does not explicitly teach the PCB is electrically connected to the at least one battery cell; however, without such an electrical connection, there would be no purpose for said PCB within the taught construct. Accordingly, it is considered either intrinsic that such an electrical connection exists, or prima facie obvious to make such an electrical connection such that the PCB has a purpose.
Schmid-Schoenbein does not explicitly teach the PCB is wired as a protection circuit module (claim 8), an electronic device comprising same (claim 9); and an outer case to accommodate the battery pack and configured to bend along the bending portion (claim 10).
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches analogous art of a bending multi-battery construct in which there is a battery pack comprising at least one battery cell and a protective circuit module (“PCM”) disposed on an upper portion of one of the battery cells (P18; 75-76; claim 12). Lee teaches the battery pack can be incorporated into an electronic device (P5), as well as a frame 30 (“outer case”) [or flexible label 50 reads on the claimed “outer case”)], both located intermediary the electrode assemblies of the battery units (i.e., where the bending portion of Schmid-Schoenbein is located) and is configured to bend at said location (see Figs. 1-4; P29-58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the printed circuit board of Schmid-Schoenbein’s battery pack to be a protection circuit module (PCM), and to further configure said battery pack and PCM within an electronic device, and with an exterior frame 30 (“outer case”) [or label 50 (“outer case’)] that folds along the bending portion given the construct is known in the art as taught by Lee, thereby providing the predictable results of a monitoring module (PCM) to prevent catastrophic failure of the battery; a functional purpose for the battery (i.e., to power an electronic device); and protection to the components by way of the exterior frame 30 and/or label.
10. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid-Schoenbein (US 2018/0175346) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 15, Schmid-Schoenbein teaches wherein the at least one of the plurality of electrode leads (7, 8) is interposed between the first upper sheet 3a and the first lower sheet 3b (Fig. 1c; P86, 95), and
wherein a low current tab 9 (“a film”) is provided between the at least one of the plurality of electrode leads (7, 8) and the first upper sheet 3a or the first lower sheet 3b at the bending portion (collectively 14a + 140a) where the pocket 12A (“sealed first inner pouch”) of the first battery unit 3A and the pocket 12B (“sealed second inner pouch”) of the second battery unit 3B are separated from each other (P20, 39, 86).
The low current tab 9 is not explicitly taught as being in the format of a “film” that exists between the at least one of the plurality of electrode leads (7, 8) and the first upper sheet 3a and the first lower sheet 3b; however, the courts have held that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the low current tab 9 as a film construct that exists between the at least one of the plurality of electrode leads (7, 8) and the first upper sheet 3a and the first lower sheet 3b (i.e., wraps around them) on the basis of design choice as a change in form or shape (In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976); MPEP § 2144.04), the alteration thereof providing the predictable results of increased contact among the entities of the low current tab 9 (“film”) and the at least one of the plurality of electrode leads (7, 8).
11. Claim 15 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid-Schoenbein (US 2018/0175346) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 2016/0099454).
Regarding claim 15, Schmid-Schoenbein teaches wherein the at least one of the plurality of electrode leads (7, 8) is interposed between the first upper sheet 3a and the first lower sheet 3b (Fig. 1c; P86, 95).
Schmid-Schoenbein fails to disclose a film is provided between the at least one of the plurality of electrode leads (7, 8) and the first upper sheet 3a and the first lower sheet 3b at the bending portion (collectively 14a + 140a) where the pocket 12A (“sealed first inner pouch”) of the first battery unit 3A and the pocket 12B (“sealed second inner pouch”) of the second battery unit 3B are separated from each other (P20, 39, 86).
In the same field of endeavor, Kwon teaches analogous art of a plurality of electrode leads (11, 12) interposed between an analogous upper sheet 112c and lower sheet 111c that includes a connection portion 130 that bends (i.e., “a bending portion”), the plurality of electrode leads (11, 12) held within the bending portion 130, and wherein an insulating layer 19 (“film”) is provided between the at least one of the plurality of electrodes leads (11, 12) and the upper sheet 112c and the lower sheet 111c at the bending portion 130:
PNG
media_image3.png
196
444
media_image3.png
Greyscale
See also the configuration in Figs. 12 and 16.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide a film between at least one of the plurality of electrode leads (7, 8) between the first upper sheet 3a and the first lower sheet 3b (Fig. 1c; P86, 95) at the bending portion where the pocket 12A (“sealed first inner pouch”) of the first battery unit 3A and the pocket 12B (“sealed second inner pouch”) of the second battery unit 3B are separated from each other (P20, 39, 86) of Schmid-Schoenbein given Kwon teaches an analogous construct in which an insulating layer (“film’) exists in the claimed locations, the configuration providing the predictable results of insulating the externally-facing surfaces from the environment while within the battery as well as during manufacture of the battery such that the leads are protected from oxidation or damage.
12. Claim 18 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid-Schoenbein (US 2018/0175346) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seo (US 2006/0127756).
Regarding claim 18, Schmid-Schoenbein teaches wherein the pouch film 3 may comprise a laminate comprising at least one plastic such as polyethylene and polypropylene, and wherein “the pouch film 3 comprises for example, no aluminum, in particular no metal” (P85; see also P22-24) (i.e., “the inner pouch does not include a metal layer” as claimed). It is noted that while Schmid-Schoenbein explicitly teaches embodiments that do not include a metal layer as part of the pouch film, Schmid-Schoenbein also teaches an alternative embodiment in which the metal layer may be included (P85).
Schmid-Schoenbein further teaches the pouch film is a composite or laminate composed of polyamide, PP, PET, and/or PP in which metal may be excluded (P12, P85). The instant disclosure teaches that the hot melt layer may be constituted of PP or PE, and the insulating layer may be formed from PET (P51 of the instant application PGPUB). Accordingly, the above materials for the composite or laminate that forms the pouch film is considered to meet the claim requirements of the inner pouch includes a hot melt layer and an insulating layer, and the inner pouch does not include a metal layer, as claimed.
For the avoidance of any doubt, Seo is cited to teach the same and the known configuration of a laminate pouch 200 using a hot-melt layer made of casted polypropylene (PP) that can function as an adhesive layer, and an insulation layer formed of PET to form a pouch 200 of a lithium secondary battery (P41). Accordingly, configuring the inner pouch of Schmid-Schoenbein to have a hot melt layer and an insulating layer (i.e., a laminate/composite of PP + PET) is a known configuration in the state of the prior art for pouch films, wherein the exclusion of the metal layer is taught by Schmid-Schoenbein (P22-24; 85).
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 6 and 7 are each objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16 and 17 remain allowed. Reasons for allowance were previously provided in prior Office Actions.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2026 have been fully considered, wherein with respect to the prior art rejection under 102/103 as being anticipated/unpatentable over Schmid-Schoenbein (US 2018/0175346), the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image4.png
306
642
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In response: The claim does not include any feature that distinguishes it from the Schmid-Schoenbein construct. Applicant emphasizes that in Schmid-Schoenbein reference the “upper and lower sheets of the inner pouches are continuous so that the first inner pouch and the second inner pouch are connected to each other.” It is not clear what bearing this has on the claimed construct that fails to present any features or limitations that distinguish the claimed construct from the Schmid-Schoenbein reference in the manner argued.
The limitation that is recited in the claim is, “…wherein the sealed first inner pouch and the sealed second inner pouch are spaced apart from each other at the bending portion of the outer pouch.” Schmid-Schoenbein explicitly teaches wherein the sealed pocket 12A (“sealed first inner pouch”) and the sealed pocket 12B (“sealed second inner pouch”) are “spatially separated from one another” (P86; see also P20, P39) at the bending portion (collectively 14a + 140a) of the outer pouch 20 (Figs. 1-3; entire disclosure relied upon). Applicant is directed to the updated rejection of record in which the 102/103 rejection is maintained and updated to reflect the amendments made. The 102/103 alternative style rejection is due to the product-by-process limitation (see MPEP 2113, Section III).
Moreover, as noted in at least two prior Office Actions, even if Applicant were to set forth a claim that appropriately captured the construct of Fig. 2 of the instant application, the following analysis has been provided twice and not addressed in two concurrent responses by Applicant:
Arguendo, if the intent of the limitation is to capture the inner pouches construct shown in Fig. 2, this construct would not appear to create a patentably distinguishing construct over the prior art references relied upon given the court has held that constructing a formerly integral structure into various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Accordingly, in the absence of new or unexpected results for which objective evidence in the record exists, the claim being fully commensurate in scope with said objective evidence, such a hypothetical claimed construct relative to the prior art relied upon currently would appear to be an endeavor in constructing a formerly integral structure into various elements, the courts holding this involves only routine skill in the art and is prima facie obvious. Id. The comments are made for compact prosecution purposes.
Accordingly, if a future claim were to be presented that appropriately captured the construct of Fig. 2 of the instant application, it would be subject to a rejection under 103 in view of the case law above. It would be a compact prosecution practice for Applicant to address this in the next response if Applicant believes the claims should not be rejected in the manner described above in view of the case law to Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Conclusion
15. 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
Prosecution Insights