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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “tool for producing the battery shell” as recited on claims 20-22, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “battery shell (100)”, where claim 1, from which both depend, does not include the number identification for the same feature. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 13-15, 18-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stephens et al. (US 20180337377 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stephens teaches a vehicle battery tray (10) which may be provided for supporting and protecting batteries, such as battery packs or modules (14) (traction batteries), for an electric vehicle (12) [0048, Fig. 1 and 3]. The battery tray (10) may comprise a tub component (20) (battery shell) which define at least a portion of the interior surface or structure of the battery containment area (22) that is occupied by the battery modules (14) and other conceivable items or components [0049 and Fig. 2]. The tub component (20) (battery shell) comprise a floor portion (28) (base) and a perimeter wall portion (30) (side walls), which defines an inner and an outer side [0050 and Fig. 3]. From Fig. 3, the feature “a maximum transverse extension in a transverse direction and a maximum height extension in a height direct” can be appreciated if the transverse direction is identified as the width direction. The tub component (20) (battery shell) comprise cross member portions (36) (inner stiffener) which extends in the transverse direction (width direction) [0051, 0053, Fig. 3 and 5]. The battery tray (10) may have a support frame or structure (24) that is attached at an exterior portion of a tub component (20) (battery shell), such as to supplement or complement its structure [0058]. The support structure (24) may include an elongated member, such as a longitudinal section or member (50) (outer stiffener), which is coupled at an exterior side (longitudinal direction) of each of the longitudinal sections (30a) of the perimeter wall portion (30) of the tub component (20) (battery shell) [0058 and Fig. 2]. It is taught that embodiments of the tub component (20) (battery shell) may include a polymeric material, such as an injection molded plastic [0054]. From the previous description the feature “the battery shell being made of plastics” could be met.
Regarding claim 2, Stephens teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Stephens further teaches that the tub component (20) (battery shell) may be formed with various materials and features, such as the floor portion (28) (base), the perimeter wall portion (30) (side walls) and the cross member portions (36) (inner stiffener) of the tub component being a single integral piece formed from a sheet of the group consisting of a sheet molding compound, an aluminum alloy and a steel alloy [0050 and 0051]. From the previous description the feature “monolithically formed” can be achieved.
Regarding claim 3, Stephens teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Stephens that the tub component (20) (battery shell) may be formed from a sheet of the group consisting of a sheet molding compound [0050]. With the sheet molding compound, a resin and composite material may be pressed into a die to form the desired features of the tub component, such that the integral structural features of the tub component may be formed in the direction of the press [0054]. Additional embodiments of the tub component (20) (battery shell) may include a polymeric material, such as an injection molded plastic [0054]. From the above description the feature “the battery shell is produced using an injection molding method or a pressing method” is met.
Regarding claim 4, Stephens teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Stephens further teaches that the cross member portions (36) (inner stiffener) may include stiffening features (42) (structured core) that integrally interconnect between the forward and rearward wall sections (38 and 40) [0053 and Fig. 5].
Regarding claim 5, Stephens teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Stephens further teaches that its tub component (20) (battery shell) may be formed with various materials and its features may be formed as a single integral piece from a sheet molding compound or like composite materials [0054]. It is contemplated that the tub component (20) (battery shell) may include carbon fibers and a polymeric material, such as an injection molded plastic [0054]. From this description the feature where “the inner stiffener has, at least in regions, a layer of a fiber-plastic composite” can be achieved.
Regarding claim 7, Stephens teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From Fig. 3 and 4 can be appreciated that the cross member portions (36) (inner stiffener) extends in a height direction greater than the 50% of the height extension of the perimeter wall portion (30) (side walls).
Regarding claim 8, Stephens teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From Fig. 3 scale, the longitudinal section or members (50) (outer stiffener) can be said to “extend over a height of greater than or equal to 30% of the maximum height extension”.
Regarding claim 9, Stephens teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From Fig. 3 scale, the longitudinal section or members (50) (outer stiffener) can be said to “extends over a width of greater than or equal to 5% of the maximum transverse extent”.
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Stephens teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Stephens further teaches that the outboard extension beam (53) of the longitudinal members (50) (outer stiffener) may be provided to use as an attachment structure and interface with the vehicle, such as to attach at the rocker rails or similar structure of the vehicle frame [0059]. From this description the feature “the outer stiffener has a fastener” (claim 13) can be considered met because the outboard extension beam (53) is employed to secure, lock or similar purpose. In a similar way, the feature “the outer stiffener comprises a resting region” (claim 15) can be considered met because the outboard extension beam (53) serve to attach and/or align the battery tray to the vehicle structure, where the resting feature may be part of the attachment ways.
Regarding claim 14, Stephens teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From Fig. 5C, the upper surface of the outboard extension beam (53) the longitudinal members (50) (outer stiffener) can be considered to meet the feature “the outer stiffener comprises a sealing surface”.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Stephens teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Stephens teaches that its vehicle battery tray (10), which comprises the tub component (20) (battery shell), may be provided for supporting and protecting batteries, such as battery packs or modules (14) (traction batteries), for an electric vehicle (12) [0048, Fig. 1 and 3].
Regarding claim 20, Stephens teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Stephens teaches that its tub component (20) (battery shell) may be formed from a sheet of the group consisting of a sheet molding compound and may include a polymeric material, such as an injection molded plastic [0050 and 0054]. With the sheet molding compound, a resin and composite material may be pressed into a die (article cavity) to form the desired features of the tub component (20) (battery shell), such that the integral structural features of the tub component may be formed in the direction of the press [0054]. From the above description the feature “the tool forming an article cavity and being configured for filling the article cavity with a molding compound made of plastic material” is met.
Regarding claim 21, Stephens teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 20. From the description of Stephens invention in claim 20, the feature where “the tool comprises at least one structural core tool which is configured to form a structured core” is met because the features of the tub component (20) (battery shell) can be formed by the pressing the molding compound into a die (article cavity).
Regarding claim 23, Stephens teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Stephens further teaches that tub component (20) (battery shell) may be formed from a sheet of the group consisting of a sheet molding compound and may include a polymeric material, such as an injection molded plastic [0050 and 0054]. With the sheet molding compound, a resin and composite material may be pressed into a die (article cavity) to form the desired features of the tub component (20) (battery shell), such that the integral structural features of the tub component may be formed in the direction of the press [0054]. From the above description the feature “A method for producing a battery shell according to claim 1 using an injection molding device or a pressing device with a tool forming an article cavity, the method comprising the following steps: a) filling the article cavity with a molding compound made of plastic[[s]] material ” is met. Stephens does not directly teaches the step “b) demolding the battery shell”, however because its invention is intended to be installed on a vehicle, this step is considered met.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens et al. (US 20180337377 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Rausch, J. (DE 102017002155 A1, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 6, Stephens teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1, except “the inner stiffener including at least one transverse rib”.
Rausch teaches a lower shell for a battery housing of a traction battery for a motor vehicle (same field of endeavor of Stephens) [0001]. The lower shell (100) has a tray (110) which is formed with a base (111) and side walls (112) surrounding this base, analogous to the tub component (20) (battery shell) of Stephens. The tray (110) further comprises a plurality of transverse and longitudinal inserts (120), analogous to the cross member portions (36) (inner stiffener) of Stephens, and inserts (130) which divide the tray (110) into individual compartments [0024 and Fig. 1]. The longitudinal inserts (120) (inner stiffener analogous) comprise ribs (150) on both sides of it (transverse direction) [0026 and fig. 3a]. It is taught that the ribs (150) provide support for the longitudinal inserts (120) (inner stiffener analogous) and prevent the deformation of such elements [0026].
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 tub component (battery shell) of Stephens to include the feature “the inner stiffener including at least one transverse rib”, because Rausch teaches that the ribs provide support for the longitudinal inserts (inner stiffener analogous) and prevent the deformation of such elements.
Claims 10, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens et al. (US 20180337377 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Stephens et al. (US 20180337378 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Stephens (‘377 A1) teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1, except where “the outer stiffener has at least two flanges connected to one another at least indirectly by a spacer element”.
Stephens (‘378 A1) teaches a battery support structure or tray (10) provided for supporting and protecting battery packs or modules or the like, such as for an electric or hybrid- electric vehicle, which is the same field of endeavor of Stephens (‘377 A1) [0039]. The battery tray (10) comprises an outer tray component (20) which is analogous to the support structure (24) of Stephens (‘377 A1). The outer tray component (20) comprises elongated reinforcement members (24) (outer stiffener analogous) having preferably at least two elongated hollow cavities (34) [0043 and Fig. 5]. If the longitudinal section or member (50) (outer stiffener) of Stephens (‘377 A1) are modified to have the structure of the elongated reinforcement members (24) taught by Stephens (‘378 A1), the feature “the outer stiffener has at least two flanges connected to one another at least indirectly by a spacer element” would be met. Stephens (‘378 A1) that the hollow cavities (34), from which the “at least two flanges connected to one another at least indirectly by a spacer element” can be obtained, reduce mass and are configured to absorb and dissipate side-impact forces imparted at the vehicle [0043].
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 tub component (battery shell) of Stephens (‘377 A1) to include the feature where “the outer stiffener has at least two flanges connected to one another at least indirectly by a spacer element”, because Stephens (‘378 A1) teaches that the referred feature can reduce mass and be configured to absorb and dissipate side-impact forces imparted at the vehicle [0043].
Regarding claim 11, Stephens (‘377 A1) and Stephens (‘378 A1) teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 10. From the discussion presented for claim 10 and specifically from Fig. 5 of Stephens (‘378 A1), the hollow cavities (34) can be considered a structured core “arranged between the at least two flanges”.
Regarding claim 17, Stephens (‘377 A1) teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1, except where “the inner stiffener engages in the outer stiffener”.
Stephens (‘378 A1) teaches a battery support structure or tray (10) provided for supporting and protecting battery packs or modules or the like, such as for an electric or hybrid- electric vehicle, which is the same field of endeavor of Stephens (‘377 A1) [0039]. The battery tray (10) comprises an inner and an outer tray component (26 and 20) which are analogous to the tub component (20) and the support structure (24) of Stephens (‘377 A1) respectively. The outer tray component (20) comprises elongated reinforcement members (24) (outer stiffener analogous) having preferably at least two elongated hollow cavities (34) and inner surfaces (25) [0043, 0047 and Fig. 5]. From Fig. 4 and 5, can be seen that whet the inner and an outer tray components (26 and 20) are attached, the cross members (30) (inner stiffener analogous) are engaged with the inner surfaces (25) of the elongated reinforcement members (24) (outer stiffener analogous) [0046]. If the tub component (20) (battery shell) of Stephen (‘377 A1) is modified in a way that the side walls are provided only by the support structure (24) as taught by Stephen (‘378 A1) and these two structures are attached as described above, the feature where “the inner stiffener engages in the outer stiffener” would be met. Stephen (‘378 A1) teaches that the referred engagement serve to define a battery containment area (18) between each of the plurality of cross members [0046].
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 tub component (battery shell) of Stephen (‘377 A1) to include the feature “the inner stiffener engages in the outer stiffener”, because Stephen (‘378 A1) teaches that the referred engagement serve to define a battery containment area between each of the plurality of cross members.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens et al. (US 20180337377 A1) in view of Stephens et al. (US 20180337378 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of Choi et al. (US 20140352886 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Stephens (‘377 A1) and Stephens (‘378 A1) teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 10. Stephens (‘377 A1) further teaches that its support structure (24) which comprises the modified longitudinal section or member (50) (outer stiffener), may be alternatively formed with aluminum, other metals or materials or combinations thereof. It is contemplated that the support structure (24) may be altered from the illustrated embodiment, such as to be formed via pultrusion, extrusion, or the like [0060]. Stephens (‘377 A1) and Stephens (‘378 A1) does not teach the feature where “the outer stiffener has, at least in regions, a layer of a fiber-plastic composite”.
Choi teaches a structure of a battery for an electric vehicle, in which a plurality of battery packs are received by a battery pack case assembly [0061 and Fig. 2]. The battery pack case assembly may include a lower case (200) comprise a base, side walls, transverse orientated inner walls and side bracket parts (211) integrally formed from a fiber reinforced plastic composite [0063, 0080, 0081, Fig. 3 and 5]. The lower case (200) may further comprise a reinforced member (212) which may be made from the same material of the lower case (200) and coupled to the side brackets (211) (outer stiffener analogous together) [0078, 0079, Fig. 3 and 5]. Based on the above description, the lower case (200) of Choi is analogous to the tub component (20) of Stephens (‘377 A1). If the modified longitudinal section or member (50) (outer stiffener) of Stephens (‘377 A1) is further modified to be prepared with the materials taught by Choi, the feature “where “the outer stiffener has, at least in regions, a layer of a fiber-plastic composite” would be met. It is taught that with the employment of the fiber reinforced plastic composite material it is possible to reduce the weight and improve the structural stiffness, the collision characteristics, and the dimensional stability of the case [0058].
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 tub component (battery shell) of Stephens (‘377 A1) and Stephens (‘378 A1) to include the feature where “the outer stiffener has, at least in regions, a layer of a fiber-plastic composite”, because Choi teaches the referred feature and that with the employment of the fiber reinforced plastic composite material it is possible to reduce the weight and improve the structural stiffness, the collision characteristics, and the dimensional stability of the case.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens et al. (US 20180337377 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Wakabayashi et al. (JP 2012018797 A, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 16, Stephens teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Stephens further teaches that it is contemplated that the tub component (20) (battery shell) may include carbon fibers and a polymeric material, such as an injection molded plastic [0054]. From this description the feature “the battery shell comprising at least one layer of a fiber- plastic composite” can be met.
Stephens does not teach the feature “the at least one layer of a fiber-plastic composite comprises fibers oriented substantially unidirectionally to one another”.
Wakabayashi teaches a case including at least a frame formed in a frame-shaped wall, and a plurality of rib walls provided in a frame of the frame and forming a housing part for mounting a plurality of built-in objects at predetermined positions in a frame of the frame [0009]. The case (1) comprises a frame (2) (side walls analogous), a base (5) and rib walls (3) (inner stiffener analogous) extending on a width (transverse) direction [0021, 0022 and Fig. 2]. The entire case (1) is made by integral molding employing thermoplastic resin with reinforcing fibers (11) [0022]. The case of Wakabayashi is on the same field of endeavor of Stephens in construction and features. At least a part of the rib wall (3) (inner stiffener analogous) is formed of a thermoplastic unidirectional continuous fiber-reinforced composite material at least a portion effective for improving rigidity and strength of the rib wall. In this portion, the continuous reinforcing fibers are arranged in one direction, and this portion is formed of the composite material made of the one-way arrayed continuous reinforcing fiber and the thermoplastic resin which is the matrix resin [0010, 0022, Fig. 4 and 6]. From the previous description the feature “the at least one layer of a fiber-plastic composite comprises fibers oriented substantially unidirectionally to one another” is met. Wakabayashi teaches that employing the referred construction, the rib wall (3) (inner stiffener analogous) can have sufficiently high rigidity and strength for holding even a relatively heavy built-in object without increasing the thickness, and it is possible to achieve both the light weight of the entire case and the sufficiently high rigidity and strength of the rib wall (3) (inner stiffener analogous) [0010].
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 tub component (battery shell) of Stephens to include the feature “the at least one layer of a fiber-plastic composite comprises fibers oriented substantially unidirectionally to one another”, because Wakabayashi teaches that employing the referred construction, the rib wall (inner stiffener analogous) can have sufficiently high rigidity and strength for holding even a relatively heavy built-in object without increasing the thickness, and it is possible to achieve both the light weight of the entire case and the sufficiently high rigidity and strength of the rib wall (inner stiffener analogous).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens et al. (US 20180337377 A1) as applied to claim 20 above, further in view of Rausch, J. (DE 102017002155 A1, see machine translation for citation) and evidenced by Huang, M. S., et al. (Influence of clamping force on tie-bar elongation, mold separation, and part dimensions in injection molding. Precision Engineering 51 (2018): 647-658, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 22, Stephens teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 20, except where “the tool has at least one clamp for clamping a fiber material”.
Rausch teaches a lower shell for a battery housing of a traction battery for a motor vehicle (same field of endeavor of Stephens) [0001]. The lower shell (100) (battery shell analogous) has a tray (110) which is formed with a base (111), side walls (112) surrounding this base and a plurality of transverse and longitudinal inserts (120), analogous to the cross member portions (36) (inner stiffener) of Stephens, and inserts (130) which divide the tray (110) into individual compartments [0024 and Fig. 1]. The lower shell (100) (battery shell analogous) is prepared employing an injection molding tool having a plurality of grooves for receive the plate elements (sheet of plastic or fiber-plastic composite) [0009 and 0019]. The injection molding tool is preferably equipped with holding or clamping mechanisms or the like for the plate elements [0019].
Regarding the injection molding holding or clamping mechanisms, Huang evidence that it is employed to prevent a fateful mold separation that affects part qualities [p. 648; par. 1].
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 tool for producing the tub component (battery shell) of Stephens to include the feature where “the tool has at least one clamp for clamping a fiber material”, because Rausch teaches the referred feature and Huang evidence that it is employed to prevent a fateful mold separation that affects part qualities.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens et al. (US 20180337377 A1) as applied to claim 23 above, further in view of Wakabayashi et al. (JP 2012018797 A, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 24, Stephens teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 23, except where “the tool forming the article cavity is equipped with a fiber material, before the article cavity is filled with the molding compound made of plastic material”.
Wakabayashi teaches a case including at least a frame formed in a frame-shaped wall, and a plurality of rib walls provided in a frame of the frame and forming a housing part for mounting a plurality of built-in objects at predetermined positions in a frame of the frame [0009]. The case (1) comprises a frame (2) (side walls analogous), a base (5) and rib walls (3) (inner stiffener analogous) extending on a width (transverse) direction [0021, 0022 and Fig. 2]. The entire case (1) is made by integral molding employing thermoplastic resin with reinforcing fibers (11) [0022]. The case of Wakabayashi is on the same field of endeavor of Stephens in construction and features. In this integral molding of the entire case (1), when the molten resin of the thermoplastic resin is injected or injected into a mold having a predetermined shape, the continuous reinforcing fibers (11) arranged in one direction are installed in a predetermined position as described above, but various methods can be adopted therefor [0022]. It is taught that the reinforcing fibers (11) can be arranged in one direction at the corresponding portions on the forming die, followed by injecting the molten thermoplastic resin into the entire molding die to simultaneously form the desired features [0023]. It is taught that by employing this method is possible to impart desirable lightweight properties, rigidity, and strength to the case (1) [0024].
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 method of Stephens to include the feature where “the tool forming the article cavity is equipped with a fiber material, before the article cavity is filled with the molding compound made of plastic material”, because Wakabayashi teaches that by employing this method is possible to impart desirable lightweight properties, rigidity, and strength to the case.
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 12/22/2025