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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/13/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, 10, 11 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichien et al. (US 2021/0135518 A1) in view of Leonardi et al. (US 2019/0140501 A1), Saban (US 2013/0169099 A1) and Schuermans et al. (US 2024/0243627 A1).
RE claim 1, Ichien teaches a system (Figs.1-3, 8 and 10) comprising: an electric motor 1 (¶ 22 and Fig.1); a rotor 530 associated with electric motor 1; a first pole 5312 of the rotor; and a first magnet stack (5312, 5322, 5332) associated with the first pole comprising a set of magnets 5312, 5322, 5332 disposed proximate the rotor arranged according to a skewed arrangement (Fig.10) and including at least a first magnet 5312 having a first length (Fig.10 and ¶ 106), a second magnet 5322 having a second length (Fig.10), and a third magnet 5332 having a third length (Fig.10).
Ichien does not teach wherein:
the skewed arrangement includes an arrangement of at least one of the first magnet, the second magnet, and the third magnet disposed relative to at least one other of the first magnet, the second magnet, and the third magnet at an angle determined based on a percentage increment of a skew angle and a number of slots per pole.
the first pole includes a second magnet stack that includes one or more magnets having characteristics corresponding to at least one of the first magnet, the second magnet, and the third magnet, the first magnet stack having length that is the same as a length of the second magnet stack.
at least one other pole having a plurality of magnets arranged according to the same skewed arrangement as the first magnet stack and the second magnet stack, wherein a total axial length of the plurality of magnets is equal to a total axial length of the first magnet, the second magnet, and the thing magnet of the first magnet stack and the one or more magnets of the second magnet stack.
RE (i) above, Leonardi teaches Leonardi suggest the angle skewed arrangement is a result effective variable whose value can be determined by number of slot per pole and angle skew (¶ 34-36), doing so can further provide reduction of torque ripple (¶ 18, 41) and achieving a desired level of rotor balancing, noise and vibration (¶ 19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ichien by having the skewed arrangement includes an arrangement of at least one of the first magnet, the second magnet, and the third magnet disposed relative to at least one other of the first magnet, the second magnet, and the third magnet at an angle determined based on a percentage increment of a skew angle and a number of slots per pole, as suggested by Leonardi, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
RE (ii) above, Saban teaches the first pole (array pole 104) includes a second magnet stack 102 (see Fig.5 for two stack of magnets 102) that includes one or more magnets 102 having characteristics corresponding to at least one of the first magnet 514, the second magnet 512, and the third magnet 514, the first magnet stack having length that is the same as a length of the second magnet stack (see Fig.5 and ¶ 45 for magnet 102 is formed of similarly aligned magnets). Saban further suggests that such magnet array provided ease of handling during manufacturing and minimize eddy current both axially along an axial centerline of the main field, and circumferentially around the main field (¶ 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leonardi by having the first pole includes a second magnet stack that includes one or more magnets having characteristics corresponding to at least one of the first magnet, the second magnet, and the third magnet, the first magnet stack having length that is the same as a length of the second magnet stack, as taught by Saban, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE (iii) above:
Saban appeared to show least one other pole 106 (Fig.10) having a plurality of magnets arranged according to the same skewed arrangement as the first magnet stack and the second magnet stack (of magnet 102), wherein a total axial length of the plurality of magnets is equal to a total axial length of the first magnet, the second magnet, and the thing magnet of the first magnet stack and the one or more magnets of the second magnet stack (Fig.10).
Saban further suggests that magnet plate can be uniformed in size and/or shape (¶ 71) part count may be minimized, and the electric machine manufacturing process may be standardized (¶ 77).
In addition, Schuermans suggests that every pole can have same configuration or geometry (¶ 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate every pole to have same configuration/geometry such that at least one other pole having a plurality of magnets arranged according to the same skewed arrangement as the first magnet stack and the second magnet stack, wherein a total axial length of the plurality of magnets is equal to a total axial length of the first magnet, the second magnet, and the thing magnet of the first magnet stack and the one or more magnets of the second magnet stack, as suggested by Saban and Schuermans, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 5/1, Ichien in view of Leonardi, Saban and Schuermans has been discussed above. Ichien further teaches the first length (of magnet 5312) is the same as the third length (length of magnet 5332, see ¶ 106 and Fig.10).
RE claim 6/5, Ichien in view of Leonardi, Saban and Schuermans has been discussed above. Ichien further teaches the first length (of magnet 5312) is greater than the second length (length of magnet 5322, see ¶ 106 and Fig.10).
RE claim 7/1, Ichien in view of Leonardi, Saban and Schuermans has been discussed above. Ichien further teaches the first length and the third length are the same as the second length (see Fig.8 for length of all the rotating bodies are substantially the same. Further, see ¶ 87 for “each of first/second/third rotating body has same configuration as body 31 of Fig.3).
RE claim 10/1, Ichien in view of Leonardi, Saban and Schuermans has been discussed above. Ichien further teaches the electric motor is associated with a steering system of a vehicle (¶ 119).
RE claim 11/10, Ichien in view of Leonardi, Saban and Schuermans has been discussed above. Ichien further teaches the steering system includes an electric power steering system (¶ 119).
RE claim 17, Ichien teaches an electric motor 1 (Figs.1-3, 8, 10) comprising: a rotor 530; a first pole of the rotor (Fig.10 and ¶ 70); and a first magnet stack (5312, 5322, 5332) associated with the first pole comprising a set of magnets 5312, 5322, 5332 disposed proximate the rotor 530 arranged according to a skewed arrangement (Fig.10) and including at least a first magnet 5312 having a first length, a second magnet 5322 having a second length (Fig.10), and a third magnet 5332 having a third length, wherein the first length is the same as the third length (see ¶ 106 and Figs.8, 10).
Ichien does not teach:
the skewed arrangement includes an arrangement of at least one of the first magnet, the second magnet, and the third magnet disposed relative to at least one other of the first magnet, the second magnet, and the third magnet at an angle determined based on a percentage increment of a skew angle and a number of slots per pole.
ithe first pole includes a second magnet stack that includes one or more magnets having characteristics corresponding to at least one of the first magnet, the second magnet, and the third magnet, the first magnet stack having length that is the same as a length of the second magnet stack.
at least one other pole having a plurality of magnets arranged according to the same skewed arrangement as the first magnet stack and the second magnet stack, wherein a total axial length of the plurality of magnets is equal to a total axial length of the first magnet, the second magnet, and the thing magnet of the first magnet stack and the one or more magnets of the second magnet stack.
RE (i) above, Leonardi teaches Leonardi suggest the angle skewed arrangement is a result effective variable whose value can be determined by number of slot per pole and angle skew (¶ 34-36), doing so can further provide reduction of torque ripple (¶ 18, 41) and achieving a desired level of rotor balancing, noise and vibration (¶ 19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ichien by having the skewed arrangement includes an arrangement of at least one of the first magnet, the second magnet, and the third magnet disposed relative to at least one other of the first magnet, the second magnet, and the third magnet at an angle determined based on a percentage increment of a skew angle and a number of slots per pole, as suggested by Leonardi, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
RE (ii) above, Saban teaches the first pole (array pole 104) includes a second magnet stack 102 (see Fig.5 for two stack of magnets 102) that includes one or more magnets 102 having characteristics corresponding to at least one of the first magnet 514, the second magnet 512, and the third magnet 514, the first magnet stack having length that is the same as a length of the second magnet stack (see Fig.5 and ¶ 45 for magnet 102 is formed of similarly aligned magnets). Saban further suggests that such magnet array provided ease of handling during manufacturing and minimize eddy current both axially along an axial centerline of the main field, and circumferentially around the main field (¶ 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leonardi by having the first pole includes a second magnet stack that includes one or more magnets having characteristics corresponding to at least one of the first magnet, the second magnet, and the third magnet, the first magnet stack having length that is the same as a length of the second magnet stack, as taught by Saban, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE (iii) above, Saban appeared to show least one other pole 106 (Fig.10) having a plurality of magnets arranged according to the same skewed arrangement as the first magnet stack and the second magnet stack (of magnet 102), wherein a total axial length of the plurality of magnets is equal to a total axial length of the first magnet, the second magnet, and the thing magnet of the first magnet stack and the one or more magnets of the second magnet stack (Fig.10).
Saban further suggests that magnet plate can be uniformed in size and/or shape (¶ 71) part count may be minimized, and the electric machine manufacturing process may be standardized (¶ 77).
In addition, Schuermans suggests that every pole can have same configuration or geometry (¶ 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate every pole to have same configuration/geometry such that at least one other pole having a plurality of magnets arranged according to the same skewed arrangement as the first magnet stack and the second magnet stack, wherein a total axial length of the plurality of magnets is equal to a total axial length of the first magnet, the second magnet, and the thing magnet of the first magnet stack and the one or more magnets of the second magnet stack, as suggested by Saban and Schuermans, for the same reasons as discussed above.
.
RE claim 18/17, Ichien in view of Leonardi, Saban and Schuermans has been discussed above. Ichien further teaches the second length is the same as the first length and the third length (see Fig.8 for length of all the rotating bodies are substantially the same. Further, see ¶ 87 for “each of first/second/third rotating body has same configuration as body 31 of Fig.3).
RE claim 19/17, Ichien in view of Leonardi, Saban and Schuermans has been discussed above. Ichien further teaches the first length is greater than the second length (see ¶ 106 and Fig.10).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichien in view of Leonardi, Saban and Schuermans as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kerlin (US 5146125).
RE claim 2/1, Ichien in view of Leonardi, Saban and Schuermans has been discussed above. Ichien further teaches the electric motor includes a permanent magnet motor (¶ 22, 34).
Ichien does not teach said motor is a synchronous motor.
Kerlin evidenced that it is well-known for electrical machine to be utilized as synchronous and induction (asynchronous) (col.1: 40-45). Kerlin further suggests that synchronous permanent magnet motor allows mechanical commutation to be replaced with solid state switching to eliminate slip-rings (col.2: 1-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ichien in view of Leonardi and Saban by having said permanent magnet motor to be a synchronous permanent motor, as taught by Kerlin, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 3/2, Ichien in view of Leonardi, Saban, Schuermans and Kerlin has been discussed above. Ichien further teaches the permanent magnet synchronous motor includes an interior permanent magnet synchronous motor (see Ichien’s Fig.1 for interior rotor).
RE claim 4/2, Ichien in view of Leonardi, Saban, Schuermans and Kerlin has been discussed above. Ichien further teaches the permanent magnet synchronous motor includes a surface mounted permanent magnet synchronous motor (Figs.1-3).
Claims 8, 9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichien in view of Leonardi, Saban and Schuermans as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blum et al. (US 2015/0015107 A1).
RE claim 8/1, Ichien in view of Leonardi, Saban and Schuermans has been discussed above. Ichien does not teach the skewed arrangement includes V-skewed arrangement.
Blum teaches the skewed arrangement includes V-skewed arrangement (Fig.2c and ¶ 28)
Blum further suggests that the harmonic and operating noise (¶ 49) can be adjusted such that the offset of the pole components to be selected depends on many parameters which influence one another. For example, the number of rotor pole pairs and the number of stator pole pairs is decisive for the maximal relative offset between the relative maximal offset of pole components occurring within a pole assembly. In addition, the relative offset of two pole components adjacent according to the invention depends on that vibration order of the overall system that is to be reduced in each case (¶ 39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ichien in view of Leonardi, Saban and Schuermans by having the skewed arrangement includes V-skewed arrangement, as taught by Blum, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 9/8, Ichien in view of Leonardi, Saban and Schuermans has been discussed above. Ichien does not teach the V-skewed arrangement includes a six step V- skewed arrangement.
Blum teaches the V-skewed arrangement includes a six step V- skewed arrangement (Figs.1c, 4).
Blum further suggests that the harmonic and operating noise (¶ 49) can be adjusted such that the offset of the pole components to be selected depends on many parameters which influence one another. For example, the number of rotor pole pairs and the number of stator pole pairs is decisive for the maximal relative offset between the relative maximal offset of pole components occurring within a pole assembly. In addition, the relative offset of two pole components adjacent according to the invention depends on that vibration order of the overall system that is to be reduced in each case (¶ 39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ichien in view of Leonardi, Saban and Schuermans by having the V-skewed arrangement includes a six step V- skewed arrangement (Figs.1c, 4), as taught by Blum, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claims 13/1 and 14/13, Ichien in view of Leonardi, Saban and Schuermans has been discussed above. Ichien does not teach the set of magnets further includes a fourth magnet having a fourth length, a fifth magnet having a fifth length, and a sixth magnet having a sixth length, wherein the fourth length is the same as the third length, the fifth length is the same as the second length, and the sixth length is the same as the first length.
Blum’s Fig.1, 5, 6 appeared to suggests that the axial length of the magnets can be the same or varied. Blum also expressively suggests that the pole axial length (thickness) can be completely different or substantially the same which can be adjusted to optimize influence on vibration during operation of the electric machine (¶ 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ichien in view of Leonardi, Saban and Schuermans by having the set of magnets further includes a fourth magnet having a fourth length, a fifth magnet having a fifth length, and a sixth magnet having a sixth length, wherein the fourth length is the same as the third length, the fifth length is the same as the second length, and the sixth length is the same as the first length, as taught by Blum, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichien in view of Leonardi, Saban and Schuermans as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Horizumi et al. (US 2019/0165631 A1).
RE claim 12/10, Ichien in view of Leonardi, Saban and Schuermans has been discussed above. Ichien does not teach the steering system includes a steer-by-wire steering system.
Horizumi suggests that electric power steering apparatus and steer by wire device are desirable in automotive that require high level of safety (¶ 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ichien in view of Leonardi, Saban and Schuermans by utilizing the motor in any applicable application such as electric power steering or steer by wire, as suggested by Horizumi, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichien in view of Leonardi, Saban and Schuermans as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Siegfriedsen et al. (US 2011/0248592 A1).
RE claim 15/1, Ichien in view of Leonardi, Saban and Schuermans has been discussed above. Ichien does not teach the first pole includes a third magnet stack.
Siegfriedsen teaches the first pole includes a third magnet stack (see Fig.1 for three stacks 40). The number of magnet stacks can be duplicated to increase power/torque of the motor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ichien in view of Leonardi, Saban and Schuermans by duplicating the magnet stack to have a second and third stack, as taught by Siegfriedsen, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, it has been held by the court held that mere duplication of part has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum et al. (US 2015/0015107 A1) in view of Booth et al. (US 2011/0175480 A1), Leonardi et al. (US 2019/0140501 A1), Saban (US 2013/0169099 A1) and Schuermans et al. (US 2024/0243627 A1).
RE claim 20, Blum teaches a method for controlling cogging torque of an electric machine, the method comprising: providing, at a first magnet stack (1b-6b) of a first pole (b) of a rotor 10 associated with the electric machine, a first set of magnets (1b-6b); and arranging magnets of the first set of magnets according to a six-step V-skewed arrangement (Fig.1c and ¶ 28), wherein: the first set of magnets includes a first magnet 1b having a first axial length (Fig.1a, 1c), a second magnet 2b having a second axial length, a third magnet 3b having a third axial length, a fourth magnet 4b having a fourth axial length, a fifth magnet 5b having a fifth axial length, and a sixth magnet 6b having a sixth axial length (Fig.1).
In embodiment of Fig.1, Blum does not teach:
the electric machine is a motor,
the skewed arrangement includes an arrangement of at least one of the first magnet, the second magnet, and the third magnet disposed relative to at least one other of the first magnet, the second magnet, and the third magnet at an angle determined based on a percentage increment of a skew angle and a number of slots per pole.
the first axial length is the same as the third axial length, the fourth axial length, and the sixth axial length, the second axial length is one of the same as the first axial length and less than the first axial length, and the fifth axial length is one of the same as the fourth axial length and less than the fourth axial length.
the first pole includes a second magnet stack that includes one or more magnets having characteristics corresponding to at least one of the first magnet, the second magnet, and the third magnet, the first magnet stack having length that is the same as a length of the second magnet stack.
providing at least one other pole having a plurality of magnets arranged according to the same skewed arrangement as the first magnet stack and the second magnet stack, wherein a total axial length of the plurality of magnets is equal to a total axial length of the first magnet, the second magnet, and the thing magnet of the first magnet stack and the one or more magnets of the second magnet stack.
RE (i) above, Booth suggests that electrical permanent magnet machine well-known for their durability, controllability, and absence of electrical sparking which can be utilized as motor and/or generator (¶ 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilized Blum electric machine in any applicable application such as motor, as suggested by Booth, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE (ii) above, Leonardi suggest the angle skewed arrangement is a result effective variable whose value can be determined by number of slot per pole and angle skew (¶ 34-36), doing so can further provide reduction of torque ripple (¶ 18, 41) and achieving a desired level of rotor balancing, noise and vibration (¶ 19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blum by having the skewed arrangement includes an arrangement of at least one of the first magnet, the second magnet, and the third magnet disposed relative to at least one other of the first magnet, the second magnet, and the third magnet at an angle determined based on a percentage increment of a skew angle and a number of slots per pole, as suggested by Leonardi, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
RE (iii) above, Blum’s Fig.1, 5, 6 appeared to suggests that the axial length of the magnets can be the same or varied. Blum also expressively suggests that the pole axial length (thickness) can be completely different or substantially the same which can be adjusted to optimize influence on vibration during operation of the electric machine (¶ 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blum by having the first axial length is the same as the third axial length, the fourth axial length, and the sixth axial length, the second axial length is one of the same as the first axial length and less than the first axial length, and the fifth axial length is one of the same as the fourth axial length and less than the fourth axial length, as suggested by Blum, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or shape of a component. A change in size or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 E 3SPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
RE (iv) above, Saban teaches the first pole (array pole 104) includes a second magnet stack 102 (see Fig.5 for two stack of magnets 102) that includes one or more magnets 102 having characteristics corresponding to at least one of the first magnet 514, the second magnet 512, and the third magnet 514, the first magnet stack having length that is the same as a length of the second magnet stack (see Fig.5 and ¶ 45 for magnet 102 is formed of similarly aligned magnets). Saban further suggests that such magnet array provided ease of handling during manufacturing and minimize eddy current both axially along an axial centerline of the main field, and circumferentially around the main field (¶ 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blum by having the first pole includes a second magnet stack that includes one or more magnets having characteristics corresponding to at least one of the first magnet, the second magnet, and the third magnet, the first magnet stack having length that is the same as a length of the second magnet stack, as taught by Saban, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE (v) above, Saban appeared to show least one other pole 106 (Fig.10) having a plurality of magnets arranged according to the same skewed arrangement as the first magnet stack and the second magnet stack (of magnet 102), wherein a total axial length of the plurality of magnets is equal to a total axial length of the first magnet, the second magnet, and the thing magnet of the first magnet stack and the one or more magnets of the second magnet stack (Fig.10).
Saban further suggests that magnet plate can be uniformed in size and/or shape (¶ 71) part count may be minimized, and the electric machine manufacturing process may be standardized (¶ 77).
In addition, Schuermans suggests that every pole can have same configuration or geometry (¶ 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate every pole to have same configuration/geometry such that at least one other pole having a plurality of magnets arranged according to the same skewed arrangement as the first magnet stack and the second magnet stack, wherein a total axial length of the plurality of magnets is equal to a total axial length of the first magnet, the second magnet, and the thing magnet of the first magnet stack and the one or more magnets of the second magnet stack, as suggested by Saban and Schuermans, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM EST.
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, Seye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270-5112. 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.
/THOMAS TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights