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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 19, 24 are amended.
Claim 25 is cancelled.
Claim 26 is new.
Claims 1-3, 6-12, 14-17, 19-24, 26 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 4/29/2026 have been entered.
Examiner notes that an error in previous office action has been rightfully pointed out by applicant: error regarding citing same prior art by two names (Do-Hyoung et al and Kim et al; US 20210296728 A1). Examiner has corrected this error herein.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the last line of Claim 1 includes phrase “substantially with the planar structure…”. However, the remarks filed on 4/29/2026 states the amended claim 1 to include “substantially within the planar structure…”. For examination purposes, Claim 1 is considered to include “substantially within the planar structure…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim refers to an “underfloor battery structure” in line 2, and then refers to “the underbody battery structure”. For examination purposes, both are considered to be “underfloor battery structure”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim refers to “in particular beech wood”. This was addressed in non-final rejection dated 5/15/2025, but not resolved in amendments to claims filed on 8/5/2025. For examination purposes, the base plate will be considered to be made from heavier material (not just beechwood), and the beam to be made from lighter material. Examiner suggests removing the “in particular” phrase.
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.
Claim 1-3, 6, 7, 9-11, 14, 15, 17, 24, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kossanyi (US 2022/0097341 A1) in view of Berger et al (US 2012/0251863 A1) as evidenced by (https://muxbolts.com/fasteners/bolts/sleeve-bolts/#:~:text=Automotive%20and%20Heavy%20Machinery%3A%20In,suspension%20systems%2C%20and%20drivetrain%20assemblies) and Miloaga et al (US 20210305544 A1), further in view of Noh et al (US 20210179189 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Kossanyi teaches a sandwich panel (akin to a protecting member) for use in a vehicle comprising at least a core layer covered on both sides with a fibrous layer to form a sandwich (akin to top belt and bottom belt), both sides being binded to the core material, characterized in that the sandwich panel further comprises at least a resilient slab foam layer (Paragraph 0012; foam material is porous). Kossanyi teaches that the first and second fibrous mat covering both sides of the core structure comprises glass, carbon, basalt or aramid fibers, or any possible mixture with these fibers (Paragraph 0034). This indicates fiber reinforced plastic material used for top and bottom belt per claim.
Kossanyi further teaches that the core layer is made from natural fibers or a natural material like paper or cardboard (Paragraph 0041; porous and fibrous). Kossanyi also teaches that the first and second fibrous layers are stacked in contact with the core layer on both sides, and then performing compression molding process to join the layers (Paragraph 0056-0059). This type of processing shows that the core is joined on its lower surface with a bottom belt and on its upper surface with a top belt.
Kossanyi does not specifically state that the core is shaped as a base plate having a planar upper and lower surface. However, Kossanyi teaches that the core layer can be grid forms other than honeycomb, such as tubular, corrugated or closed cell foam (Paragraph 0069). Since Kossanyi supports the use of other grid forms, and a closed cell foam layer can be considered as a flat shape similar to a base plate having a continuous planar upper and lower surface. Hence, based on the sandwich structure of Kossanyi, such a flat plate would then be joined along substantially an entire extent of the core to the top belt and the bottom belt (i.e. first and second fibrous mat). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the core to be shaped as a base plate having a continuous planar upper surface and a planar lower surface, joined along substantially an entire extent of the core to the top belt and the bottom belt, respectively in order to form a sandwich structure that can be used in a load floor panel, as a battery pack cover (Paragraph 0063).
Kossanyi teaches the presence of other features incorporated in the panel such as mounting appliances, nuts etc (Paragraph 0055), but does not specifically teach that the top and bottom belt are directly joined together in edge areas that laterally protrude over the core in areas of mounting holes in the protecting member.
However, Berger teaches a battery pack support by forming a sandwich structure with a light core material molded between two layers of composite material (Paragraph 0016). Berger teaches that the cover and support have horizontal flanges with holes (akin to lateral protrusions) that align and are sized to accept mechanical fasteners (Paragraph 0044). The flanges are on the edge of the protecting member/support. The type of mechanical fastener is not limited in Berger. Hence, the fastener can be a sleeve type fastener commonly used in automotives (see evidentiary reference regarding sleeve bolts used in automative applications). Miloaga also provides a battery enclosure where attachment members 116 are configured to secure the outer covers to a bottom panel. The bottom panel may also include attachment members such as threaded inserts, overmolded into the structure of the bottom panel. The attachment member may include a bushing (same as sleeve) integrally connected to the outer covers and through which the screw passes to secure the outer covers, top cover and bottom panel (Paragraph 0048). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide mounting holes along the edge of the panel equipped with a sleeve to achieve proper fastening of battery protective covers.
Kossanyi teaches that the core layer is substantially planar (as explained above based on closed cell foam layer grid form). Kossanyi states that the core material is covered on both sides with a fibrous reinforcement layer to form a sandwich, and based on Figure 3 it can be seen that the sandwich panel (i.e. protecting member) defines a substantially planar structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
421
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modifed Kossanyi in view of Berger includes mountinq holes along the edge of the protecting member. Berger teaches that the battery enclosure structure has a cover and support, and both may be shallow, flat-bottomed pans with pan walls which terminate in a flange oriented parallel to the bottom of the pan. The support and cover will typically have a common plan view form, but may also be of significantly different shapes, particularly different depths. This implies that the bottom support can be of negligible depth resulting in a substantially planar structure of the protecting member, and accordingly, the mounting holes on this protective member will be on the substantially planar surface.
Furthermore, Noh teaches a sandwich panel as a vehicle floor modular structure (Paragraph 011) with high strength and light weight (Paragraph 0070). The sandwich panel of Noh is akin to a protecting member and further Noh teaches that each of the bolt heads and nuts may have a thickness that enables it to be inserted into the sandwich panel 100 to form the flat bottom of the vehicle (Paragraph 0074). Hence, 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 the mounting holes of the protecting member within the planar structure of the protective member in order to bolt the floor panel to the vehicle (Paragraph 0072).
PNG
media_image2.png
328
393
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2,
Kossanyi teaches that the core layer is formed using composite materials made of natural fibers and thermoplastic (Paragraph 0068; porous and fibrous naturally grown fiber composite material).
Regarding Claim 3,
Kossanyi does not teach the use of porous and fibrous structural material containing cellulose fibers in lignin matrix. Per instant specification, this includes all sorts of grown wood material found in stem, roots of trees/shrubs/plants.
However, Berger teaches that the core is a light weight material such as balsa wood, which would contain cellulose fibers in lignin matrix. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the core using cellulose fibers in matrix lignin (balsa wood) in order to reduce the weight of the battery enclosure (Paragraph 0033), and in turn reduce overall vehicle mass (Paragraph 0004).
Regarding Claim 6,
Kossanyi teaches that the sandwich panel comprises at least on one surface of the panel raised protrusions in the skin layer formed, like a raised pattern in the form of knobs, waves or embellishments, surface patterning similar to wood or leather graining, stiffening ribs, or beams. Such protrusions are mounted on the core (Claim 13 from Kossanyi).
Regarding Claim 7 and Claim 9,
Kossanyi teaches that the surface of the sandwich panel contains embellishments in the form of a raised pattern on the surface of the part with knobs and ribs mainly filled by polyurethane (Paragraph 0078). Kossanyi also teaches the use of material that is made from aramid or natural fibers (Paragraph 0041).
Regarding Claim 10,
Kossanyi does not teach the top belt with a wave-like shape that has a form-locking fit with the wave-like reinforcement structure of the core.
However, Berger teaches that stiffening features such as ribs are formed by displacing a section of floor 22 and so creating a complementary recess 27 and a contoured undersurface 25’ in floor 22. This forms a wave shape in the top layer of the sandwich panel (Paragraph 0032). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a top belt with a wave-like shape that has a form-locking fit with the wave-like reinforcement structure of the core in order to increase the overall stiffness of the support (Paragraph 0016).
PNG
media_image3.png
340
210
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11,
Kossanyi does not teach that the beams are arranged parallel to one another or parallel to an edge or arranged in a frame like manner or comprise a cross bar.
However, Berger teaches that the stiffening ribs are similarly oriented or crisscrossed in a grid pattern (Paragraph 0016; akin to a frame like or cross bar pattern). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to orient the beams as claimed in order to increase the overall stiffness of the support and cover of the battery pack (Paragraph 0016).
Regarding Claim 14,
Kossanyi does not teach that the top and bottom belt are directly joined together in edge areas that laterally protrude over the core in areas of mounting holes in the protecting member.
However, Berger teaches that the cover and support have horizontal flanges (akin to lateral protrusions) that align with matching holes and are sized to accept fasteners (Paragraph 0044). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide such laterally protrusions with mounting holes to achieve proper fastening of battery protective cover.
Regarding Claim 15,
Kossanyi teaches that the surface contains a raised rim at the edge of the molded part (Paragraph 0078).
Regarding Claim 17,
Kossanyi teaches that the thickness of the core layer is preferably variable (Paragraph 0039). In terms of the limitation about the core has a wedge-shaped edge that tapers off, in Figure 3 it is shown that the core has a tapered region as annotated in figure below.
PNG
media_image4.png
367
729
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 24,
Claim 24 has the limitations for the protecting member as listed in Claim 1, but it also includes having the mounting holes located substantially within the planar structure of the protecting member for fitting the protecting member with a bottom of an underbody battery structure of an electric vehicle.
Modifed Kossanyi in view of Berger includes mountinq holes along the edge of the protecting member. Berger teaches that the battery enclosure structure has a cover and support, and both may be shallow, flat-bottomed pans with pan walls which terminate in a flange oriented parallel to the bottom of the pan. The support and cover will typically have a common plan view form, but may also be of significantly different shapes, particularly different depths. This implies that the bottom support can be of negligible depth resulting in a substantially planar structure of the protecting member, and accordingly, the mounting holes on this protective member will be on the substantially planar surface.
Furthermore, Noh teaches a sandwich panel as a vehicle floor modular structure (Paragraph 011) with high strength and light weight (Paragraph 0070). The sandwich panel of Noh is akin to a protecting member and further Noh teaches that each of the bolt heads and nuts may have a thickness that enables it to be inserted into the sandwich panel 100 to form the flat bottom of the vehicle (Paragraph 0074). The limitation related to “protecting member for fitting the protecting member with a bottom of an underbody battery structure of an electric vehicle” defines the protecting member by what it does, rather than what it is. This is a functional limitation, and therefore was not evaluated on its own, but in conjunction with the remainder of claim 24. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Modified Kossanyi in view of Berger and Noh teaches the claimed structure as stated in the above rejection, and therefore would be capable of performing in the manner claimed. Hence, 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 the mounting holes of the protecting member within the planar structure of the protective member in order to bolt the floor panel to the vehicle (Paragraph 0072) or the underbody battery structure.
Regarding Claim 26,
Claim 26 has a protection system for an electric vehicle comprising an underfloor battery structure and a protecting member. The limitations associated with the protecting member are the limitations in claim 1. Refer to rejection of Claim 1 above in relation to other limitations.
Kossanyi teaches using the sandwich panel as a load floor panel, as a battery or battery pack cover (Paragraph 0063). This implies that the invention in Kossanyi consists of a battery pack which is supported by the sandwich panel of Kossanyi. This forms a combination of an underfloor battery structure and a protecting member. Kossanyi teaches that the panel material is light in weight but has a high stiffness and impact protection (Paragraph 0075) making it suitable for use in the protection system of an underfloor battery structure. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a protection system comprising an underfloor battery structure and a protecting member to enhance impact protection (Paragraph 0075).
Claims 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kossanyi in view of Berger, further in view of Kim (US 20210296728 A1), as evidenced by (https://muxbolts.com/fasteners/bolts/sleeve-bolts/#:~:text=Automotive%20and%20Heavy%20Machinery%3A%20In,suspension%20systems%2C%20and%20drivetrain%20assemblies) and Miloaga et al.
Claims 19-23 provide method steps to make the product of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 19: step a, the core being made of porous and fibrous material has been discussed under Claim 1 rejection based on Kossanyi and Berger. Other structural limitations of Claim 19 that overlap with claim 1 have also been discussed under Claim 1 rejection. This step does not provide any additional structural element to claim 19.
Steps b, c are about joining the bottom belt and top belt to the core with an adhesive. Kim teaches that the inner frame 100 and the outer frame 400 made of a steel material may be attached to the cooling block 300 made of a fiber-reinforced plastic composite by an adhesive. (Paragraph 0116).
Regarding Claim 20: step d is about machining the core to obtain a desired shape. Berger teaches that a light weight material can be used as core layer and this material can be shaped to desired form using machining (Paragraph 0033).
Step e is about inserting the core in a positive locking manner to form a monolithic cavity free component. Berger teaches different layered arrangements that are cavity free and depict the core inserted between the top and bottom layers (Figure 4 and Figure 6).
PNG
media_image5.png
479
249
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
444
195
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 21, step d includes 3D milling of the core to form tapered edges. The core has tapered edges as shown in the rejection of Claim 17 based on Kossanyi. The method of machining the core is established in rejection of step d of Claim 20 based on Berger. 3D milling also known as CNC 3D machining is a particular type of machining methodology which is deemed obvious based on teaching in Berger related to the use of machining for shaping the core. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 3D milling to shape the core and taper its edges in order to align to the structure of the battery protective member.
Regarding Claim 22, step f is about including a reinforcement beam that is mounted on the base plate, and that is parallel to the edge of the protecting member. Berger teaches that the ribs can be parallel in a suitable direction, and can be constructed by bonding material to a reinforced polymer layer and support layer (Paragraph 0033). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform step f in order to attach the beam to the base plate of the core to improve structural support for the battery protective member.
Regarding Claim 23, the method comprises machining a hole through the base plate and the beam for mounting the protective member to the battery structure. Kim teaches that the inner frame has fastening holes that couples all the layers of the battery protecting plate (Paragraph 0128). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to machine holes through the base plate and beam in order to provide a fastening method with the battery structure of the electric vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 12, 16 are 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 8 is regarding the limitation that the base plate is made of heavier material, and the beam is made of lighter material. Rho teaches a sandwich panel wherein the core material may have density that ranges from about 0.5 g/cm3 to about 1.2 g/cm3 (Paragraph 0055), but upon further review Examiner notes that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use different density material for base plate and beam. Note that Claim 8 is also objected to in regards to the phrase “in particular beechwood”.
Claim 12 is regarding a bore hole for mounting the protecting member to the battery structure of the electric vehicle is machined through atleast one beam. Kim teaches that the inner frame has fastening holes that couples all the layers of the battery protecting plate (Paragraph 0128), but does not make it obvious that the bore hole is used for mounting the protecting member to the battery structure of the electric vehicle.
Claim 16 states that the top belt and/or the bottom belt each has a thickness of less than 1.5 mm or equal to 1 mm; and/or the core has a first core thickness of less than 10 mm in the area of the base plate and a second core thickness of less than 30 mm in an area where the reinforcing beam is mounted. Kossanyi teaches that the core thickness is between 2 and 30 mm. This thickness range substantially overlaps the claimed range for core thickness in the instant claim 16. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kossanyi, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. Kossanyi does not teach that the top and bottom belt have a thickness of less than 1.5 mm or equal to 1 mm. Similarly, the prior art references of Kim and Berger do not make it obvious to have the top belt and/or the bottom belt each has a thickness of less than 1.5 mm or equal to 1 mm.
References of Interest
Examiner notes the following references of interest as pertinent to the subject matter.
Steiner et al (US 20140287641 A1)
Jerez (US 20170226674 A1)
Bryer et al (US 7913788 B1)
Gundogan et al (US 20210384581 A1)
Dupper et al (US 20200373531 A1)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Kossanyi does not teach or suggest structural configuration of amended claim 1. Kossanyi discloses a sandwich panel including a honeycomb core layer with chambers that form open channels extending through the core structure (Kossanyi 0012, Fig. 3). Examiner disagrees with this because Kossanyi also teaches that the core layer can be grid forms other than honeycomb, such as tubular, corrugated or closed cell foam (Paragraph 0069). Since Kossanyi supports the use of other grid forms, and a closed cell foam layer can be considered as a flat shape similar to a base plate having a continuous planar upper and lower surface.
Applicant argues that Berger does not disclose or suggest a fiber-reinforced plastic composite core having continuous planar surfaces that are joined to fiber-reinforced plastic belts along substantially the entire extent of the core. While Berger teaches battery enclosures formed of fiber-reinforced plastic composites, Berger's enclosure structure is fundamentally different from the claimed protecting member. Berger teaches an enclosed container structure comprising a support and cover that together surround and contain battery components (Berger 0014-0015, Claim 1), not a substantially planar protective member designed to mount underneath a battery structure. Examiner asserts that Berger teaches that the battery enclosure structure has a cover and support, and both may be shallow, flat-bottomed pans with pan walls which terminate in a flange oriented parallel to the bottom of the pan. The support and cover will typically have a common plan view form, but may also be of significantly different shapes, particularly different depths. This implies that the bottom support can be of negligible depth resulting in a substantially planar structure of the protecting member, and accordingly, the mounting holes on this protective member will be on the substantially planar surface.
Applicant argues that structural configuration taught by Berger is fundamentally different from the claimed substantially planar protective member with mounting holes located substantially within the planar structure. Berger's box-like enclosure structure with peripheral flanges containing mounting holes is specifically designed to join two enclosure halves together to contain and enclose battery components between them. This inherently requires a three-dimensional tray or pan geometry with upstanding walls and peripheral flanges. Similar to reasoning explained in point above Berger teaches a substantially planar structure of the protecting member, and would not always have a pan geometry depending on the depth selected for the support structure in Berger.
Applicant argues that Examiner has not established that Berger would have provided guidance to a skilled artisan regarding whether mounting holes should be located within a substantially planar protective member as opposed to in peripheral flange structures. Applicant states that Kossanyi also fails to teach or suggest the same. Examiner points to the rejection of Claim 1 in 103 rejection section above wherein the prior art reference of Noh is relied upon to show how the mounting holes are located within a substantially planar protective member.
Applicant argues that Kossanyi teaches sandwich panels for general vehicle applications focusing on aesthetic and structural properties. Examiner disagrees with this argument. Kossanyi provides an invention that can be used as a sandwich panel in vehicles to withstand high bending loads, and pressure and tensile stresses while being a more versatile light weight alternative (Paragraph 0004 and 0010). Also, Kossanyi teaches application as load floor or battery cover (Paragraph 0054).
Applicant argues that Kossanyi does not disclose mounting holes that extend through both the top and bottom covering layers of the sandwich panel and are equipped with sleeves. Similarly, Berger, MIloaga, and NPL reference do not teach of suggest mounting holes that protrude through both top and bottom layers of a substantially planar composite structure and are equipped with sleeves. Examiner disagrees with this argument. One of ordinary skill in the art related to battery and vehicle underfloor protective structures, is well versed in the type of fasteners and sleeve configuration that would be employed in such structures. The type of fasteners used are elaborated in NPL reference and Miloaga, as referenced in the rejection of Claim 1 above. The references teach a bottom support structure that is situated underneath a battery structure.
Applicant argues rejection of Claim 8 over Kossanyi, Berger, Miloaga and Rho. Examiner agrees with the applicant’s comments that Rho teaches that core material may have density ranging from about 0.5 g/cm3 to about 1.2 g/cm3 (Rho 0055), but this density range teaching does not suggest the specific claimed limitation wherein the base plate is made from a heavier material and the beam is made from a lighter material to achieve the particular structural and functional characteristics of the claimed protecting member. Hence, upon further review the rejection of Claim 8 is withdrawn.
Applicant argues rejection of Claims 12, 16, and that the fastening holes taught by Kim serve an entirely different function than the bore hole recited in Claim 12. Kim's fastening holes couple layers of the battery protecting plate to each other as part of an assembly process for constructing the battery case structure. In contrast, Claim 12 requires a bore hole machined through the beam specifically for mounting the protecting member to the battery structure of the electric vehicle. This is an external mounting function wherein the entire protecting member is secured to the vehicle's battery structure, not an internal coupling function for joining layers during assembly of the protecting member itself. Examiner agrees with this argument, and rejection of Claim 12 and 16 have been withdrawn.
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 SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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.
/SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1783 /MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
