DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 5-6, 10 have been amended.
Claim 4 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5-11 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 7-8 objected to because of the following informalities: claims 5, 7-8 depend on claim 4 which has been cancelled. For examination purposes claims 5, 7-8 are considered dependent on claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et al. (US 8790808 B2) hereinafter "Hermann" in view of Jens et al. (DE102008059968A1) hereinafter "Jens".
Regarding claim 1, Hermann teaches an electrical energy storage device intended for a vehicle, comprising at least one casing (Fig. 22; shows a casing structure surrounding a stack of electrical elements, which is conventional in the art) in which there are housed at least one electrical energy storage cell and at least one heat exchanger configured to perform an exchange of heat between a coolant designed to circulate in the at least one heat exchanger and the at least one electrical energy storage cell (abstract; column 1 lines 33-36 and lines 45-60; column 5 lines 46-48; ), wherein the at least one heat exchanger includes at least two header tanks extending in a first direction and between which there extend at least two coolant circulation ducts fluidically connected to each of the at least two header tanks (Fig. 3-7, element 6; Fig. 33; column 2 lines 17-20; column 5 lines 49-56). Hermann teaches the use of a refrigerant such as CO2 in the heat exchanger (column 6 lines 8-12; column 1lines 47-60).
PNG
media_image1.png
207
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
234
585
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hermann does not teach wherein the at least one heat exchanger includes at least one coolant release member configured to release the coolant into the at least one casing.
However, Jens teaches an electrical energy storage device intended for a vehicle, comprising at least one electrical energy storage cell and at least one heat exchanger configured to perform an exchange of heat between a coolant designed to circulate in the at least one heat exchanger and the at least one electrical energy storage cell ([0022]; [0023]). Jens further teaches wherein the coolant system utilizes a non-flammable gas such as CO2 ([0012]; [0013]) and includes a fire suppression mechanism comprising an emergency opening on the supply line (considered a coolant release member), located on the inflow side of the cooling plate, that can be fluidly connected to the interior of the housing in case of fire ([0014]-[0015]; [0024]-[0025]; Fig. 1-2 reproduced below; [0028]; [0031]). Jens teaches that overcharged or short-circuited Li-ion cells lead to an increase in internal temperature and pressure in the housing and certain active materials decompose exothermically above 150℃ leading to system failure and a risk of fire ([0003]). Jens teaches the importance of a fire suppression system for Li-ion batteries in a vehicle ([0007]). Jens teaches that CO2 introduced into the housing interior displaces oxygen and protects against fire ([0027]) and the refrigerant circuit also serves as an extinguishing agent storage ([0030]).
PNG
media_image3.png
802
673
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hermann teaches an electrical energy storage system with a heat exchanger wherein CO2 is used as a cooling fluid. Jens teaches an electrical energy storage system with a heat exchanger wherein CO2 is used as cooling fluid and further teaches wherein a coolant release mechanism is included in the heat exchanger to allow release of CO2 into the housing in case of fire which acts as an extinguishing agent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the heat exchanger taught by Hermann by including a coolant release mechanism as taught by Jens.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the heat exchanger taught by Hermann by including a coolant release mechanism as taught by Jens to release CO2 and protect against fire in the case of system failure, increasing the safety of the electrical energy storage system.
Hermann in view of Jens does not teach the at least one coolant release member being arranged at one end of at least one of the header tanks when viewed along the first direction.
However, Jens teaches wherein a coolant release mechanism can be located on the supply line, located on the inflow side of the cooling plate ([0024]-[0025]; Fig. 1-2; [0028]; [0031]) or may be located in a cooling plate, which offers greater choice of location ([0034]), or further, a coolant release member may be located on both a supply line and a cooling plate ([0034]).
Jens recognizes that a coolant release member may be located in multiple different locations within a housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified electrical energy storage device taught by Hermann in view of Jens by placing the coolant release member in the coolant system at one or more of multiple location within the housing.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have selected one end of at least one of the header tanks with a reasonable expectation of successfully creating a fire suppression system. Further, the selection of a coolant release member placement location is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 5, Hermann in view of Jens teaches the electric energy storage device as claimed in claim 1. Hermann teaches a heat exchanger wherein each header is split into two portions with a baffle, which is oriented in the same direction as the longitudinal direction of the fluid passages, causing the fluid flow to have multiple serpentine reversals (Fig. 5 annotated below, shows the fluid flow path; column 5 lines 56-64). Since each header is split into two portions, the second portions can be considered intermediate header tanks. Further, the second portions of each header, annotated as intermediate header tanks, are located between the inlet portion of a header and the outlet portion of a header in relation to the fluid flow path.
PNG
media_image4.png
172
573
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, Hermann meets the limitation the at least one heat exchanger includes at least one intermediate header tank arranged between the at least two header tanks, parallel to these at least two header tanks.
Hermann does not teach the at least one coolant release member being arranged at one end of the at least one intermediate header tank.
However, Jens teaches wherein a coolant release mechanism can be located on the supply line, located on the inflow side of the cooling plate ([0024]-[0025]; Fig. 1-2; [0028]; [0031]) or may be located in a cooling plate, which offers greater choice of location ([0034]), or further, a coolant release member may be located on both a supply line and a cooling plate ([0034]).
Jens recognizes that a coolant release member may be located in multiple different locations within a housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified electrical energy storage device taught by Hermann in view of Jens by placing the coolant release member in the coolant system at one or more of multiple location within the housing.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have selected at one end of the at least one intermediate header tank with a reasonable expectation of successfully creating a fire suppression system. Further, the selection of a coolant release member placement location is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 6, Hermann in view of Jens teaches the electric energy storage device as claimed in claim 1. Hermann teaches a heat exchanger wherein each header is split into two portions with a baffle, which is oriented in the same direction as the longitudinal direction of the fluid passages, causing the fluid flow to have multiple serpentine reversals (Fig. 5 annotated above, shows the fluid flow path; column 5 lines 56-64). Since each header is split into two portions, the second portions can be considered intermediate header tanks. Further, the second portions of each header, annotated as intermediate header tanks, are located between the inlet portion of a header and the outlet portion of a header in relation to the fluid flow path.
Therefore, Hermann meets the limitation wherein the at least one heat exchanger includes a plurality of intermediate header tanks arranged between the at least two header tanks.
Regarding claim 7, Hermann in view of Jens teaches the electrical energy storage device of claim 1.
Hermann in view of Jens does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one coolant release member extends along a main axis of extension parallel to a main direction of extension of the at least one header tank on which the at least one coolant release member is arranged.
However, Jens teaches wherein a coolant release mechanism can be located on the supply line, located on the inflow side of the cooling plate ([0024]-[0025]; Fig. 1-2; [0028]; [0031]) or may be located in a cooling plate, which offers greater choice of location ([0034]), or further, a coolant release member may be located on both a supply line and a cooling plate ([0034]).
Jens recognizes that a coolant release member may be located in multiple different locations within a housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified electrical energy storage device taught by Hermann in view of Jens by placing the coolant release member in the coolant system at one or more of multiple location within the housing.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have selected a location such that the at least one coolant release member extends along a main axis of extension parallel to a main direction of extension of the at least one header tank on which the at least one coolant release member is arranged with a reasonable expectation of successfully creating a fire suppression system. Further, the selection of a coolant release member placement location is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 8, Hermann in view of Jens teaches the electrical energy storage device of claim 1.
Hermann in view of Jens does not teach wherein the at least one coolant release member extends along a main axis of extension secant to a main direction of extension of the at least one header tank on which this at least one coolant release member is arranged.
However, Jens teaches wherein a coolant release mechanism can be located on the supply line, located on the inflow side of the cooling plate ([0024]-[0025]; Fig. 1-2; [0028]; [0031]) or may be located in a cooling plate, which offers greater choice of location ([0034]), or further, a coolant release member may be located on both a supply line and a cooling plate ([0034]).
Jens recognizes that a coolant release member may be located in multiple different locations within a housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified electrical energy storage device taught by Hermann in view of Jens by placing the coolant release member in the coolant system at one or more of multiple location within the housing.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have selected a location such that the at least one coolant release member extends along a main axis of extension secant to a main direction of extension of the at least one header tank on which this at least one coolant release member is arranged. Further, the selection of a coolant release member placement location is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 9, Hermann in view of Jens teaches wherein the coolant is a fluid composed predominantly of carbon dioxide (Hermann column 6 lines 8-11; Jens [0024]).
Regarding claim 10, Hermann teaches a motor vehicle comprising at least one electrical energy storage device (column 1 lines 33-60) including at least one casing (Fig. 22; shows a casing structure surrounding a stack of electrical elements, which is conventional in the art) in which there are housed at least one electrical energy storage cell and at least one heat exchanger configured to perform an exchange of heat between a coolant designed to circulate in the at least one heat exchanger and the at least one electrical energy storage cell (abstract; column 1 lines 33-36 and lines 45-60; column 5 lines 46-48), wherein the at least one heat exchanger includes at least two header tanks extending in a first direction and between which there extend at least two coolant circulation ducts fluidically connected to each of the at least two header tanks (Fig. 3-7, element 6; Fig. 33; column 2 lines 17-20; column 5 lines 49-56). Hermann teaches the use of a refrigerant such as CO2 in the heat exchanger (column 6 lines 8-12; column 1lines 47-60).
Hermann does not teach wherein the at least one heat exchanger includes at least one coolant release member configured to release the coolant into the at least one casing.
However, Jens teaches an electrical energy storage device intended for a vehicle, comprising at least one electrical energy storage cell and at least one heat exchanger configured to perform an exchange of heat between a coolant designed to circulate in the at least one heat exchanger and the at least one electrical energy storage cell ([0022]; [0023]). Jens further teaches wherein the coolant system utilizes a non-flammable gas such as CO2 ([0012]; [0013]) and includes a fire suppression mechanism comprising an emergency opening on the supply line (considered a coolant release member), located on the inflow side of the cooling plate, that can be fluidly connected to the interior of the housing in case of fire ([0014]-[0015]; [0024]-[0025]; Fig. 1-2 reproduced below; [0028]; [0031]). Jens teaches that overcharged or short-circuited Li-ion cells lead to an increase in internal temperature and pressure in the housing and certain active materials decompose exothermically above 150C leading to system failure and a risk of fire ([0003]). Jens teaches the importance of a fire suppression system for Li-ion batteries in a vehicle ([0007]). Jens teaches that CO2 introduced into the housing interior displaces oxygen and protects against fire ([0027]) and the refrigerant circuit also serves as an extinguishing agent storage ([0030]).
Hermann teaches an electrical energy storage system with a heat exchanger wherein CO2 is used as a cooling fluid. Jens teaches an electrical energy storage system with a heat exchanger wherein CO2 is used as cooling fluid and further teaches wherein a coolant release mechanism is included in the heat exchanger to allow release of CO2 into the housing in case of fire which acts as an extinguishing agent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the heat exchanger taught by Hermann by including a coolant release mechanism as taught by Jens.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the heat exchanger taught by Hermann by including a coolant release mechanism as taught by Jens to release CO2 and protect against fire in the case of system failure, increasing the safety of the electrical energy storage system.
Hermann in view of Jens does not teach the at least one coolant release member being arranged at one end of at least one of the header tanks when viewed along the first direction.
However, Jens teaches wherein a coolant release mechanism can be located on the supply line, located on the inflow side of the cooling plate ([0024]-[0025]; Fig. 1-2; [0028]; [0031]) or may be located in a cooling plate, which offers greater choice of location ([0034]), or further, a coolant release member may be located on both a supply line and a cooling plate ([0034]).
Jens recognizes that a coolant release member may be located in multiple different locations within a housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified electrical energy storage device taught by Hermann in view of Jens by placing the coolant release member in the coolant system at one or more of multiple location within the housing.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have placed the coolant release member at one end of at least one of the header tanks with a reasonable expectation of successfully creating a fire suppression system. Further, the selection of a coolant release member placement location is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann (US 8790808 B2) in view of Jens (DE102008059968A1), as applied above, in further view of Capati et al. (US 20190077276 A1) hereinafter "Capati" in further view of Sturk et al. (EP 2546904 A1) hereinafter "Sturk".
Regarding claim 2, modified Herman teaches the electrical energy storage device as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Herman teaches the at least one coolant release member includes at least one shut-off device (Jens [0017]) configured to at least partially rupture at, for example, a temperature above 110℃ (Jens [0017]). Modified Hermann teaches various coolant release mechanisms such as a melt seal or a rupture disc (Jens [0017]) wherein the temperature prevailing inside the housing interior or the temperature outside the housing interior can be used as opening criterion (Jens [0014]).
Modified Hermann does not teach wherein the at least one coolant release member includes at least one shut-off device configured to at least partially rupture at a temperature greater than 150°C and at a pressure greater than 200 bar.
However, Capati teaches an energy storage unit for a vehicle with a coolant containing cold plate that releases coolant into the energy storage unit at elevated temperatures (abstract). Capati teaches where a shut-off device ([0036] “insert 220”) ruptures at a temperature greater than 150°C ([0036] “the melting temperature of the inserts 220 can range from 70°C to 400°C”). Capati teaches that the shut-off device can be forced open by pressure ([0042] “inserts 220 can also be forced open by pressure”). Capati further teaches that venting cooling fluid into the battery module reduces or stops potentially dangerous chemical reactions inside the electrochemical cells and protects the battery module from overheating ([0023]).
Modified Hermann teaches various coolant release mechanisms such as a melt seal or a rupture disc (Jens [0017]) wherein elevated temperature, such as a temperature above 110℃, is used as opening criterion (Jens [0014]). Capati teaches wherein a shut off device has a melting temperature of 70°C to 400°C ([0036])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrical energy storage device taught by modified Hermann by setting the rupture temperature within the range taught by Capati.
One of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrical energy storage device taught by modified Hermann by setting the rupture temperature within the range taught by Capati to prevent overheating of the battery ([0023]).
Modified Hermann in view of Capati does not teach wherein at least one shut-off device configured to at least partially rupture at a pressure greater than 200 bar.
However, Sturk teaches an electrochemical storage device for a vehicle ([0006]) comprising at least one casing in which there are housed at least one electrical energy storage cells ([0006]) and at least one heat exchanger ([0006]) wherein the heat exchanger includes at least one coolant release member configured to release coolant into the casing ([0013]). Sturk further teaches wherein at least one coolant release member includes at least one shut-off device configured to at least partially rupture at a certain maximum pressure ([0014]) or at an elevated temperature ([0015] vent operated in response to sensor unit; [0028] sensor unit detects temperature). Sturk teaches a preferred way to achieve controlled opening of the shut-off device is to design it such that a vent membrane is only able to withstand a certain maximum pressure and opens when that pressure is exceeded, such as during a collision ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coolant release member taught by modified Herman by utilizing a pressure set point in addition to a temperature set point as taught by Sturk.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the coolant release member taught by modified Herman by utilizing a pressure set point in addition to a temperature set point as taught by Sturk to prevent the release mechanism from releasing when abnormal conditions are not present.
Modified Herman in view of Sturk does not explicitly teach where a shut-off device ruptures at a pressure greater than 200 bar.
However, it is known in the art to design vent membranes to open above a maximum pressure, thereby releasing coolant fluid into an electric energy storage device casing in response to an increase in pressure, such as a vehicle collision (Sturk [0014]; [0029]). Control of cooling fluid release is important as the fluid should not be released during normal operation, but during abnormal operation such as a collision (Sturk [0014]) where itis important to lower the temperature of the energy storage device and prevent runaway to increase safety (Sturk [0029]).
Thus, Sturk identifies the pressure as a results effective variable.
The pressure above which a shut-off device opens effects when a coolant fluid is released into an electrical energy storage device casing. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized the pressure above which the shut-off device opens in order to allow the cooling fluid to be released only during abnormal conditions such as collision.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the maximum pressure the shut-off device could withstand to allow the cooling fluid to be released only during abnormal conditions such as collision ([0014]). One of ordinary skill in the art could have arrived at the claimed pressure by routine experimentation of the pressure taught by Sturk, with a reasonable expectation of successfully designing a shut-off device (see MPEP2 144.05).
Thus modified Herman in view of Capati in further view of Sturk teaches the electrical energy storage system according to claim 2.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann (US 8790808 B2) in view of Jens (DE102008059968A1) in view of Capati (US 20190077276 A1) in view of Sturk (EP 2546904 A1), as applied above, in further view of German et. al. (US 20050170240 A1) hereinafter “German”.
Regarding claim 3, modified Hermann teaches the electrical energy storage device as claimed in the claim 2.
Modified Hermann does not teach wherein the at least one coolant release member includes a head and body, the body including a first part by means of which itis secured, by screwing, to the at least one heat exchanger, and a modular second part attached to the first part and in which the shut-off device is arranged.
However, German teaches wherein the at least one coolant release member includes a head and body ([0074] “vent screw”) the body including a first part by means of which it is secured, by screwing ([0076]), to the at least one heat exchanger, and a modular second part attached to the first part ([0074] “vent disk”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vent membrane shut-off taught by modified Hermann by including a head and body and screw portion to attach a shut-off device to a heat exchanger as taught by German.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann (US 8790808 B2) in view of Jens (DE102008059968A1), as applied above, in further view of Capati (US 20190077276 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Herman teaches the electrical energy storage device as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Herman teaches the at least one coolant release member includes at least one shut-off device (Jens [0017]) configured to at least partially rupture at, for example, a temperature above 110℃ (Jens [0017]). Modified Hermann teaches various coolant release mechanisms such as a melt seal or a rupture disc (Jens [0017]) wherein the temperature prevailing inside the housing interior or the temperature outside the housing interior can be used as opening criterion (Jens [0014]).
Modified Hermann does not teach wherein the at least one coolant release member includes at least one shut-off device configured to at least partially rupture at a temperature greater than 150°C or at a pressure greater than 200 bar.
However, Capati teaches an energy storage unit for a vehicle with a coolant containing cold plate that releases coolant into the energy storage unit at elevated temperatures (abstract). Capati teaches where a shut-off device ([0036] “insert 220”) ruptures at a temperature greater than 150°C ([0036] “the melting temperature of the inserts 220 can range from 70°C to 400°C”). Capati teaches that the shut-off device can be forced open by pressure ([0042] “inserts 220 can also be forced open by pressure”). Capati further teaches that venting cooling fluid into the battery module reduces or stops potentially dangerous chemical reactions inside the electrochemical cells and protects the battery module from overheating ([0023]).
Modified Hermann teaches various coolant release mechanisms such as a melt seal or a rupture disc (Jens [0017]) wherein elevated temperature, such as a temperature above 110℃, is used as opening criterion (Jens [0014]). Capati teaches wherein a shut off device has a melting temperature of 70°C to 400°C ([0036])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrical energy storage device taught by modified Hermann by setting the rupture temperature within the range taught by Capati.
One of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrical energy storage device taught by modified Hermann by setting the rupture temperature within the range taught by Capati to prevent overheating of the battery ([0023]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights