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 .
Response to Amendment
The Request for Continued Examination filed on October 27, 2025 has been received and the amendments filled on September 30, 2025, in response to the Final Office Action mailed on August 5, 2025, have been entered. Claims 1 and 7 have been amended and claims 8-13 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-7 are pending on this application.
Regarding claim 1, it was amended to incorporate the limitation where the impact absorption structure lower part “ is connected to the longitudinal member at a height adjacent to the lower wall member below the distance Hu” and where its upper part is “spaced apart from an inner surface of the longitudinal member but connected to the longitudinal member adjacent to the upper wall member at the distance Hct”.
Regarding claim 7, it was amended to incorporate the limitation where the impact absorption structure upper part is “spaced apart from the longitudinal sill with a connection member that is adapted to be connected to the longitudinal sill member adjacent to the top plate at a height of the top plate”.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawase et al. (US 20180312200 A1) in view of Sakaguchi et al. (US 20160236713 A1).
As acknowledged on the Final Office Action, Kawase does not teach the feature where the upper part is “connected to the longitudinal member adjacent to the upper wall member”. The peripheral wall (66) (longitudinal impact absorption structure) is connected to the rocker panels (63 and 65) (longitudinal members) only by its the lower wall portion (66D) (lower part) [0127 and Fig. 8]. Because of this reason, Kawase neither teaches the limitation where the upper part is “connected to the longitudinal member adjacent to the upper wall member at the distance Hct”.
Applicant argues that the feature where the upper part is “spaced apart from an inner surface of the longitudinal member but connected to the longitudinal member adjacent to the upper wall member at the distance Hct” is not taught by Sakaguchi because the upper connection (40/44B/58/60) is made well below the distance Hct (and Hu) and the height of the casing top plate, as is now claimed. [Remarks p. 7 and 8].
Sakaguchi teaches a vehicle underfloor structure (10), analogous to the Kawase’s vehicle lower portion structure (10), applied to a vehicle (12), such as an electric automobile, having a battery frame (20) in which a battery (18) is installed [par. 0047 and Fig. 1-2]. The battery frame (20) is intended to work as a longitudinal impact absorption structure [par. 0068], it comprises the external package portion (18A) (casing side wall) and a side frame (26) (reinforcement section) extending outwardly towards the adjacent energy absorbing member (40) (longitudinal member) [Fig. 2]. The overhanging portion (30) (upper part) is spaced apart from an inner surface of the energy absorbing member (40) (longitudinal member) longitudinal member but it is connected to the energy absorbing member (40) (longitudinal member) longitudinal member adjacent to the upper wall (44B) (upper wall member) by a bolt [par. 0066]. The taught connection between the overhanging portion (30) (upper part) and the energy absorbing member (40) (longitudinal member), as argued by the applicant, is indeed below the distances Hct/Hu (top plate distance from the bottom plane).
Based on the above reasons Kawase fail to teach the limitation where the upper part is “connected to the longitudinal member adjacent to the upper wall member at the distance Hct” and Sakaguchi fails to cure the deficiencies of Kawase because its taught connection between the overhanging portion (30) (upper part) and the energy absorbing member (40) (longitudinal member), as argued by the applicant, is indeed below the distances Hct/Hu (top plate distance from the bottom plane).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 and 8, filed September 30, 2025, with respect to claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawase et al. (US 20180312200 A1) in view of Sakaguchi et al. (US 20160236713 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Because of the direct or indirect dependency of claim 2-6 on claim 1, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections applied to these claims have been withdrawn.
Regarding claim 7 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawase et al. (US 20180312200 A1) in view of Sakaguchi et al. (US 20160236713 A1).
The arguments presented by the applicant regarding amended claim 1 are the same presented for amended claim 7 [Remarks p. 7 and 8]. Because of this reason all the previously presented discussion for amended claim 1 applies to amended claim 7, because these two claims share similar features and the incorporated limitation where the upper part is “spaced apart from the longitudinal sill with a connection member that is adapted to be connected to the longitudinal sill member adjacent to the top plate at a height of the top plate (Hct distance)”.
Based on the above reasons Kawase fail to teach the limitation where the upper part is “spaced apart from the longitudinal sill with a connection member that is adapted to be connected to the longitudinal sill member adjacent to the top plate at a height of the top plate” and Sakaguchi fails to cure the deficiencies of Kawase because its taught connection between the overhanging portion (30) (upper part) and the energy absorbing member (40) (longitudinal member), as argued by the applicant, is indeed below the distances Hct/Hu (top plate distance from the bottom plane).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 and 8, filed September 30, 2025, with respect to claim 7 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawase et al. (US 20180312200 A1) in view of Sakaguchi et al. (US 20160236713 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 7 has been withdrawn.
Upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Kawase et al. (US 20180312200 A1) and Volz, K. (US 20160006008 A1).
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawase et al. (US 20180312200 A1) and Volz, K. (US 20160006008 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kawase teaches in a third embodiment, a vehicle lower portion structure (10) which is encompass within two rocker panels (63 and 65) (longitudinal members) extending along the vehicle front-rear direction at both ends of the floor panel (12) in the vehicle width direction, and a floor cross member (18) extends along the vehicle width direction between the rocker panels (63 and 65) (longitudinal members) above the floor panel (12) (same configuration as the first embodiment) [par. 0079-0081, 0118 and Fig. 1-2, 7-8]. The above lower portion structure (10) description can be considered a frame. The rocker panels (63 and 65) (longitudinal members) have a partition wall (25) (upper transversely oriented wall member) which is located at a vertical distance from the bottom plate which can be considered analogous to the vertical distance Hu [par. 0119]. In addition, the rocker panels (63 and 65) (longitudinal members) have a bottom wall portion (24E) (lower transversely oriented wall member) which is nearer the bottom plane than the partition wall (25) (upper transversely oriented wall member) but separated from the bottom plane [par. 0141 and Fig. 8].
Inside the vehicle lower portion structure (10) is contained a battery pack (20) comprising battery modules (20A) (array of battery cells) (features “defining an array top surface, an array bottom surface and an array side surface” inferred). The battery pack (20) have a battery case (64) comprising a peripheral wall (66) (side wall), top plate (68) and bottom plate (70). Because it is stated that the battery pack (20) serves as a drive force supply device for supplying electric power to a power unit such as a motor, the described embodiment can be comprised by an electrical vehicle [par. 0082 and 0175].
The feature “a casing top plate contacting the array top surface, a casing bottom plate contacting the array bottom surface and a casing side wall, connected to the top and bottom plates and contacting the array side surface” is inferred [par. 0124-0125]. The case top plate (68) is situated a vertical distance Hct from the bottom plane that substantially corresponds with the distance Hu (see Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
534
898
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated version of Kawase’s Fig. 8 to identify interpreted bottom plane and vertical distances Hu and Hct.
The peripheral wall (66) (side wall) is configured to be an impact absorption member, it has a reinforcement structure formed by wall portions (66A-66S) which extends outwardly from the inner peripheral wall portion (66B) towards the adjacent rocker panels (63 and/or 65) (longitudinal members) [par. 0129, 0152 and Fig. 8]. The lower wall portion (66D) (lower part) of the peripheral wall (66) (side wall) is fixed to the vehicle lower portion structure (10) bottom plate (70), which is connected to the rocker panels (63 and/or 65) (longitudinal members) member at a height adjacent to the lower wall member (below the distance Hu) [par. 0127 and Fig. 8]. The upper part portion (66C) (upper part) is spaced apart from the spaced apart from an inner surface of the rocker panel (63 or 65) (longitudinal members).
Kawase does not teach the feature where the upper part is “connected to the longitudinal member adjacent to the upper wall member at the distance Hct”.
Volz teaches a storage cell unit (1), which is installed in a motor vehicle body of a motor vehicle (same field of endeavor of Kawase). The storage cell unit (1) has a housing (3) in which a plurality of storage cell modules are accommodated (battery pack). The housing (3), which is sealed in relation to environmental influences, has a left side wall (31), a right side wall (32), a front side wall (33), a rear side wall (34), a bottom wall (35) and an upper wall (36) [0035, Fig. 1 and 2]. An energy absorption region (7) is formed close to the side walls (31, 32, 33 and 34) [0036]. In particular, the corresponding side walls 31, 32, 33, 34 are designed to be deformable [0042]. Based on the previous description, the side walls (31-34) can be considered “longitudinal impact absorption structure comprising the casing side wall” and because they are preferably of double walled design [0039] the feature “a reinforcement section extending outwardly” can be considered met. The housing (3) is connected to a left and a right side sill (11 and 12) (spaced-apart longitudinal members). In particular, the left and right side wall (31 and 32) (longitudinal impact absorption structures) are connected to the left and right side sill (11 and 12) (spaced-apart longitudinal members), respectively [0039 and Fig. 1]. From the previous description, because the left and right side wall (31 and 32) (longitudinal impact absorption structures) have an upper part and given that this upper part is connected with the left and a right side sill (11 and 12) (spaced-apart longitudinal members) at a height adjacent to the upper wall (36) (Hct height analogous), the feature where the upper part is “connected to the longitudinal member adjacent to the upper wall member at the distance Hct” is met. It is taught that the housing has a reinforcing effect on the vehicle body as a whole. The housing increases a torsional rigidity and a flexural rigidity of the vehicle body. Furthermore, by connecting the side walls (31 and 32) (longitudinal impact absorption structures) into the longitudinal members (11 and 12), the cross section of the latter can even be of smaller design since the housing (3) and the side walls serve as an addition to the lateral longitudinal members (11 and 12) [0041]. Based on this description can be said that the connection between side walls (31 and 32) (longitudinal impact absorption structures) and the longitudinal members (11 and 12) helps to reinforce the vehicle body as a whole.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery pack longitudinal impact absorption structure of Kawase to include the feature where the upper part is “connected to the longitudinal member adjacent to the upper wall member at the distance Hct”, because Volz teaches the referred limitation and that by connecting the side walls (longitudinal impact absorption structures) into the longitudinal members, the cross section of the latter can even be of smaller design since the housing and the side walls serve as an addition to the lateral longitudinal members, which helps to increase the torsional and flexural rigidity of the vehicle body.
Regarding claim 2, Kawase and Volz teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Kawase further teaches that the peripheral wall (66) (side wall and impact absorption member) has a reinforcement structure formed by wall portions (66A-66S). The lower wall potion (66D) is fixed to the vehicle lower portion structure (10) bottom plate (70) by welding or riveting and it extends below the bottom wall portion (24E) (lower transversely oriented wall member) of the rocker panels (63 and 65) (longitudinal members). The lower wall potion (66D)-bottom plate (70) piece is connected to the bottom wall portion (24E) (lower transversely oriented wall member) via a bolt connection (32) through its end (30) [0088, 0127 and Fig. 8].
Regarding claim 3, Kawase and Volz teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Kawase teaches that the upper part portion (66C) (upper part) of the peripheral wall (66) (side wall, impact absorption and reinforcing member) extends below the partition wall (25) (upper transversely oriented wall member) of the rocker panels (63 and 65) (longitudinal members) [Fig. 8]. The connection between the upper part portion (66C) (upper part) of the peripheral wall (66) (side wall, impact absorption and reinforcing member) and the partition wall (25) (upper transversely oriented wall member) can be achieved by the teachings of Volz as presented for claim 1. Because of this reason the features of this claim can be considered met.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawase et al. (US 20180312200 A1) and Volz, K. (US 20160006008 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Rawlinson et al. (US 20120153682 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kawase and Volz teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Kawase further teaches that the battery case (64) has a top plate (68) to which the partition wall (25) (upper transversely oriented wall member) of the rocker panels (63 and 65) (longitudinal members) extends over its plane [0125 and Fig. 8].
Kawase does not teach where the “upper part of the longitudinal members extends a distance Hwc above the plane of the top plate that is not higher than 10 cm”.
Rawlinson teaches a single piece vehicle rocker panel, which may be configured to provide a mounting surface for a battery pack enclosure, where the rocker panel is configured to allow the battery pack enclosure to be bolted to the rocker panel (analogous to the frame described by Kawase) [0008, 0013 and Fig. 1-2]. On Fig. 3, is taught a rocker (301) (longitudinal member analogous) preferably having a height between 200-275 mm (20-27 cm) [par. 0024]. Based on the example shown on Fig. 6, the rocker (301) (longitudinal member analogous), has a mounting flange (319) (upper part analogous) which extends partially from internal wall (313) above the battery pack (205) (top plate feature inferred) [0029-0030]. It would be reasonably to infer that the feature where the “upper part of the longitudinal members extends a distance Hwc above the plane of the top plate that is not higher than 10 cm” is an easy to meet design parameter, considering the battery and car frame fixing properties of such rockers and the preferential height range. It is taught that the vehicle rocker panel having a mounting flange (319) (upper part analogous) which extends partially over the battery pack (205), may be configured to provide a mounting surface for the vehicle's floor panel, wherein the floor panel may be bolted or welded to the mounting flange [0011].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric vehicle frame of Kawase and Volz to include the feature where the “upper part of the longitudinal members extends a distance Hwc above the plane of the top plate that is not higher than 10 cm”, because Rawlinson teaches a rocker configuration with a preferential heigh range which can met the referred feature and may be configured to provide a mounting surface for the vehicle's floor panel, wherein the floor panel may be bolted or welded to its mounting flange.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawase et al. (US 20180312200 A1), Volz, K. (US 20160006008 A1) and Rawlinson et al. (US 20120153682 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, further in view of Kellner, P. and Bohlien, J. (DE 102018130068 A1, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 5, Kawase, Volz and Rawlinson teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 4, except “wherein no cross beams extend between the longitudinal members at the level of the top plate”.
Kellner and Bohlien teach a vehicle (1), which can be driven electrically or partially electrically, having a vehicle body (2) which, arranged in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle (1), has a body structure (4) on the side and a traction battery (3) further inside, and at least one mounting element (7) for fastening the traction battery (3) to the vehicle body (2) (analogous to the frame configuration of Kawase taught for claim 1) [Abstract and Fig. 1 and 3]. In the area of each body sill (5) (longitudinal member analogous), a mounting element (7) extending essentially over the length of the traction battery (3) in the X direction is provided for fastening the traction battery (3) to the vehicle body (2), specifically the body structure (4) (frame analogous) [0031]. Kellner and Bohlien does not teach the employment of cross beams extended between the body sill (5) (longitudinal members analogous) at the level of the traction battery (3) top plate. It is taught that with the vehicle body structure (4) (frame analogous) described by Kellner and Bohlien, it can be develop a vehicle having a robust crash behavior with a relatively low crash force while being of simple structural design and simplify the assembly of the traction battery with respect to the vehicle body [0004].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric vehicle frame of Kawase, Volz and Rawlinson to include the feature “wherein no cross beams extend between the longitudinal members at the level of the top plate”, because Kellner and Bohlien teach an analogous frame structure meeting the referred feature and with it can be develop a vehicle having a robust crash behavior with a relatively low crash force while being of simple structural design and simplify the assembly of the traction battery with respect to the vehicle body.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawase et al. (US 20180312200 A1) in view of Volz, K. (US 20160006008 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of He et al. (CN 111009629 A, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 6, Kawase and Volz teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1, except where “the top plate, bottom plate and side walls being adhesively connected to the array top surface, the array bottom surface and the array side surfaces, respectively”.
He teaches a battery pack related to an electrical vehicle (analogous to Kawase’s frame). In one embodiment, single cells (203) are arranged as a battery assembly (200) which is then disposed in a shell (100) (case). The bonding between the single cells (203) and between the single cells (203) and the shell (100) (case) is optimized by using a structural adhesive, preferably by glue injection, so that the inside of the battery pack (300) is firmly formed into a whole [Abstract, 0150 and Fig. 12-13]. In addition, by gluing the top and bottom surfaces of the plurality of single cells (203) to the inner surface of the shell (100) (case) respectively, the battery pack (300) can be designed as an integral structure [par. 0172]. Based on the above descriptions, the feature “the top plate, bottom plate and side walls being adhesively connected to the array top surface, the array bottom surface and the array side surfaces, respectively” can be reasonably considered met. It is taught that by achieving an integral structure, the battery pack (300) is designed to be a structural member with extremely high rigidity, thereby greatly improving the rigidity and strength of the battery pack (300) and enhancing the mechanical safety and reliability. When in use, the structural strength of the integral battery pack (300) is used as part of the structural strength of the entire vehicle.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery pack of Kawase and Volz to include the feature “the top plate, bottom plate and side walls being adhesively connected to the array top surface, the array bottom surface and the array side surfaces, respectively”, because He teaches that it can achieve an integral structure for the battery pack, thereby greatly improving the rigidity and strength of the battery pack and enhancing the mechanical safety and reliability. When in use, the structural strength of the integral battery pack is used as part of the structural strength of the entire vehicle.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawase et al. (US 20180312200 A1) in view of Volz, K. (US 20160006008 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kawase teaches in a third embodiment, a vehicle lower portion structure (10) which is encompass within two rocker panels (63 and 65) (longitudinal members) extending along the vehicle front-rear direction at both ends of the floor panel (12) in the vehicle width direction, and a floor cross member (18) extends along the vehicle width direction between the rocker panels (63 and 65) (longitudinal members) above the floor panel (12) (same configuration as the first embodiment) [par. 0079-0081, 0118 and Fig. 1-2, 7-8]. Inside the vehicle lower portion structure (10) is contained a battery pack (20) comprising battery modules (20A) (array of battery cells) (features “defining an array top surface, an array bottom surface and an array side surface” inferred). The battery pack (20) have a battery case (64) comprising a peripheral wall (66) (side wall), top plate (68) and bottom plate (70).
The peripheral wall (66) (side wall) is configured to be an impact absorption member, it has a reinforcement structure formed by wall portions (66A-66S) which extends outwardly from the inner peripheral wall portion (66B) towards the adjacent rocker panels (63 and/or 65) (longitudinal members) [par. 0129, 0152 and Fig. 8]. The lower wall portion (66D) (lower part) of the peripheral wall (66) (side wall) is fixed to the vehicle lower portion structure (10) bottom plate (70), which is connected to the rocker panels (63 and/or 65) (longitudinal members) member at a height adjacent to the lower wall member [par. 0127 and Fig. 8]. The upper part portion (66C) (upper part) is spaced apart from the spaced apart from an inner surface of the rocker panel (63 or 65) (longitudinal members).
Kawase does not teach the feature where the upper part is “adapted to be connected to the longitudinal sill member adjacent to the top plate at a height of the top plate”.
Volz teaches a storage cell unit (1), which is installed in a motor vehicle body of a motor vehicle (same field of endeavor of Kawase). The storage cell unit (1) has a housing (3) in which a plurality of storage cell modules are accommodated (battery pack). The housing (3), which is sealed in relation to environmental influences, has a left side wall (31), a right side wall (32), a front side wall (33), a rear side wall (34), a bottom wall (35) and an upper wall (36) [0035, Fig. 1 and 2]. An energy absorption region (7) is formed close to the side walls (31, 32, 33 and 34) [0036]. In particular, the corresponding side walls 31, 32, 33, 34 are designed to be deformable [0042]. Based on the previous description, the side walls (31-34) can be considered “longitudinal impact absorption structure comprising the casing side wall” and because they are preferably of double walled design [0039] the feature “a reinforcement section extending outwardly” can be considered met. The housing (3) is connected to a left and a right side sill (11 and 12) (spaced-apart longitudinal members). In particular, the left and right side wall (31 and 32) (longitudinal impact absorption structures) are connected to the left and right side sill (11 and 12) (spaced-apart longitudinal members), respectively [0039 and Fig. 1]. From the previous description, because the left and right side wall (31 and 32) (longitudinal impact absorption structures) have an upper part and given that this upper part is connected with the left and a right side sill (11 and 12) (spaced-apart longitudinal members) at a height adjacent to the upper wall (36) (Hct height analogous), the feature where the upper part is “adapted to be connected to the longitudinal sill member adjacent to the top plate at a height of the top plate” is met. It is taught that the housing has a reinforcing effect on the vehicle body as a whole. The housing increases a torsional rigidity and a flexural rigidity of the vehicle body. Furthermore, by connecting the side walls (31 and 32) (longitudinal impact absorption structures) into the longitudinal members (11 and 12), the cross section of the latter can even be of smaller design since the housing (3) and the side walls serve as an addition to the lateral longitudinal members (11 and 12) [0041]. Based on this description can be said that the connection between side walls (31 and 32) (longitudinal impact absorption structures) and the longitudinal members (11 and 12) helps to reinforce the vehicle body as a whole.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery pack longitudinal impact absorption structure of Kawase to include the feature where the upper part is “adapted to be connected to the longitudinal sill member adjacent to the top plate at a height of the top plate”, because Volz teaches the referred limitation and that by connecting the side walls (longitudinal impact absorption structures) into the longitudinal members, the cross section of the latter can even be of smaller design since the housing and the side walls serve as an addition to the lateral longitudinal members, which helps to increase the torsional and flexural rigidity of the vehicle body.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILBERTO RAMOS RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-2740. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/G.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 11/17/2025
Prosecution Insights