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 4-5, 7, 9, and 16-17 are as previously presented. Claims 1, 6, 8, and 18 are amended. Claims 10-15 are withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1 and 4-18 are currently pending and claims 1, 4-9, and 16-18 have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/07/2025 has been entered. Applicant's amendment overcomes the following.
Specification Objections
Drawing Objections
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein the warning in formation includes'' in lines 11-12 of claim 1. However, it is suggested to amend to - wherein the warning information includes -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows:
“A firefighting device” in line 3 of claim 1. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “configured to release an extinguishing agent to the battery when a temperature of the battery is greater than or equal to a temperature threshold” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“A detection device” in lines 1-2 of claim 4. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “configured to detect the pressure value in the firefighting device; and send the pressure value in the firefighting device to the control device” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“A connection device” in line 2 of claim 5. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “for connecting” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
A review of the specification appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “A firefighting device” in line 3 of claim 1; Fig. 7 shows the firefighting device and para. 0041 recites “each firefighting module/firefighting device 130 is filled with an extinguishing agent.” The examiner will interpret this limitation as any device capable of holding extinguishing agent.
A review of the specification appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “A detection device” in lines 1-2 of claim 4; Para. 0046 recites “the detection module/detection device 140 includes one or more sensors 1402.” The examiner will interpret this limitation as any device with one or more sensors.
A review of the specification appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “A connection device” in line 2 of claim 5; Para. 0048 recites “the connection module/connection device 150 may be a T-type three-way valve, or may be a structure including a three-way pipe 1501 and a second valve 1502. When the connection module/connection device 150 is the structure including the three-way pipe 1501” and Fig. 3 shows a module with three connections. The examiner will interpret this limitation as a valve with three connections.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (WO 2022012453) in view of Ike (US 10,143,871) and Thomas (US 2021/0268322).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a firefighting system (Fig. 10, all structural features), comprising:
a control device (Para. 0033 –“micro control unit”);
a battery (Fig. 10, 102); and
a firefighting device (Fig. 10, 10) connected to the battery (Fig. 10 shows the device connected to the battery via 27, 34 and 35);
wherein the firefighting device is configured to receive an extinguishing agent (Para. 0060) and release an extinguishing agent to the battery when a temperature of the battery is greater than or equal to a temperature threshold (Para.0110 – “preset deformation temperature threshold”; Para. 0110), and
wherein the control device is configured to:
obtain a pressure value in the firefighting device (Para. 0033); and
generate warning information indicating that the firefighting system is faulty when the pressure value in the firefighting device meets a preset condition (Para. 0035-0037; Clm. 10), wherein the warning information includes a second warning (Para. 0037)
wherein the control device is further configured to generate the second warning information when a reduction of the pressure value
Li does not teach wherein the warning formation includes first warning information and second warning information wherein the control device is configured to generate the first warning information when a reduction amount of the pressure value in the firefighting module within a preset duration is greater than or equal to a first change threshold, wherein the first warning information indicates that the battery connected to the firefighting module is on fire: and wherein the control device is further configured to generate the second warning information when a reduction of the pressure value in the firefighting device within the preset duration is less than the first change threshold and greater than a second change threshold, wherein the second warning information indicates that the firefighting module is leaking extinguishing agent.
However, Ike teaches a prior art comparable firefighting system (Fig. 1, 100) comprising
a control device (Fig. 1, 25),
a firefighting device (Fig. 1, 14-15 & 17-18),
wherein the control device is configured to:
obtain a pressure value in the firefighting device (Fig. 2, 201); and
generate warning information indicating that the firefighting system is faulty when the pressure value in the firefighting device meets a preset condition (Fig. 2, 202), wherein the warning in formation includes first warning information (Fig. 2, 206) and second warning information (Fig. 2, 210)
wherein the control device is configured to generate the first warning information when a reduction amount of the pressure value in the firefighting module within a 57 to Col. 6: Ln. 3), wherein the first warning information indicates that the firefighting device has been activated due to a fire (Underlined to emphasize change from the claimed language; Col. 3: Ln. 11-28; The reduction amount of the pressure value in the firefighting module within a duration is “the rate of change when system pressure drops” as recited by Ike); and
wherein the control device is further configured to generate the second warning information when a reduction of the pressure value in the firefighting device within the
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (generate warning information indicating that the firefighting system is faulty when the pressure value in the firefighting device meets a preset condition, wherein the warning in formation includes first warning information and second warning information wherein the control device is configured to generate the first warning information when a reduction amount of the pressure value in the firefighting module within a preset duration is greater than or equal to a first change threshold, wherein the first warning information indicates that the firefighting device has been activated due to a fire that the battery connected to the firefighting module is on fire: and wherein the control device is further configured to generate the second warning information when a reduction of the pressure value in the firefighting device within the preset duration is less than the first change threshold and greater than a second change threshold, wherein the second warning information indicates that the firefighting module is leaking) as taught by Ike, into the system disclosed by Li to avoid this type of “false” alarms, specifically alarms triggered by leakage as opposed to an open sprinkler head (Col. 1: Ln. 44-46), and yielding the predictable result of generating a first warning information when a leak is detected in the fire-fighting module and generating a second warning information when the firefighting device is activated because the battery connected to the firefighting module with a reasonable expectation of success.
Li in view of Ike does not explicitly teach wherein the duration is a preset duration.
However, Thomas teaches a prior art comparable device (Ti. – “fire protection system”), wherein a control device (Fig. 2, 36) monitors the pressure of a firefighting device (Fig. 2, {12, 14, 16}; Para. 0026) within a preset duration (Para. 0026 – “predetermined duration”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (monitoring the pressure of the firefighting device within a preset duration) as taught by Thomas, into the system disclosed by Li in view of Ike to capture a statistically significant change pressure (Para. 0026) and yielding the predictable result of monitoring the pressure of the firefighting device with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Li in view of Ike and Thomas teaches the firefighting system of claim 1.
Li further discloses the system further comprising a detection device (Para. 0033 – “pressure sensor,”) configured to:
detect the pressure value in the firefighting device; and
send the pressure value in the firefighting device to the control device (Para. 0033).
Regarding claim 5, Li in view of Ike and Thomas teaches the firefighting system according to claim 4.
Li further discloses wherein the firefighting system further comprises a connection device (Fig. 7, {21-25}; The connection device is also noted as item 20 as shown in Fig. 1-2.), wherein a first end of the connection device is connected to an interface of one firefighting device (Fig. 7, 24), and a third end of the connection device is connected to the battery (Fig. 7 shows the third end (25) connected to the battery via 27 and 34.).
Li does not disclose, a second end of the connection device is connected to the detection device.
However, Thomas teaches a prior art comparable firefighting system (Fig. 2, 30) wherein the firefighting system comprises a connection device (Fig. 2, 32), wherein a first end of the connection device (Annotated Fig. 2) is connected to an interface of one firefighting device (Annotated Fig. 2; Fig. 2, 16), a second end of the connection device (Annotated Fig. 2) is connected to a detection device (Fig. 2, 34; Para. 0022 – “pressure sensor”; The second end is connected via to the second connection device via 36), and a third end of the connection device is connected to a piping network (Fig. 2, “FPS”; Abs. – “FPS piping network”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one known element (connection device; Fig. 2, 32) with a known function (opening and closing the device based on a control signal {Para. 0022-0025}) as taught by Thomas, by performing a simple substitution with another element (connection device; Fig. 7, {21-25}) disclosed by Li) and yielding the predictable result of opening the connection device when a fire is detected.
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image1.png
437
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 6-7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Ike, Thomas, and Ling (US 2017/0043194).
Regarding claim 6, Li in view of Ike and Thomas discloses the firefighting system of claim 1.
Li further discloses, wherein the battery comprises:
a housing (Fig. 10 shows 102 with a housing.);
a fire extinguishing pipe (Fig. 11, L11); and
an electrochemical cell (Fig. 11, 111-116),
wherein the fire extinguishing pipe and the electrochemical cell are disposed inside the housing (Fig. 11);
the fire extinguishing pipe inside the housing and includes a first end connected to the firefighting device (Fig. 1 shows L11 connected to the fire extinguishing device via 27, 34, and 35) and a closed second end (Fig. 11 shows a closed second end at L116)); and
the fire extinguishing pipe and is filled with the extinguishing agent (Para. 0091 – “initial high-pressure fluid inside the fire extinguishing agent flow pipeline” ; Para. 0117 –“ the fire extinguishing agent in the secondary branch pipe L11.”); and
the fire extinguishing pipe is configured to release the extinguishing agent into the housing in which the fire extinguishing pipe is located when a temperature of the electrochemical cell is greater than or equal to a temperature threshold (Para. 0142).
Li does not explicitly disclose wherein the fire extinguishing pipe is fastened inside the housing.
However, Ling teaches a prior art comparable device (Ti. – Integrated Thermal Event Suppression System) comprising a housing (Fig. 3, 5);
a fire extinguishing pipe (Fig. 3, 106 & 108); and
an electrochemical cell (Fig. 3, 302; Para. 0035),
wherein the fire extinguishing pipe and the electrochemical cell are disposed inside the housing (Fig. 3), and the fire extinguishing pipe is fastened inside the housing (Clm. 11 – “mounting a nozzle within battery pack”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (fastening the fire extinguishing pipe inside the housing) as taught by Ling, into the system taught by Li in view of Ike and Thomas to provide structural support for the fire extinguishing pipe, which is a predictable result.
Regarding claim 7, Li in view of Ike, Thomas, and Ling teaches the firefighting system according to claim 6.
Li further discloses wherein the fire extinguishing pipe is a fire detection tube (Para. 0013 – “The temperature sensing nozzle at the liquid outlet”).
Regarding claim 16, Li in view of Ike, Thomas, and Ling teaches the firefighting system according to claim 6.
Li further discloses the system further comprising
a detection device (Para. 0033 – “pressure sensor,”) configured to:
detect the pressure value in the firefighting device; and
send the pressure value in the firefighting device to the control device (Para. 0033).
Regarding claim 17, Li in view of Ike, Thomas, and Ling teaches the firefighting system according to claim 16.
Li further discloses wherein the firefighting system further comprises a connection device (Fig. 7, {21-25}; The connection device is also noted as item 20 as shown in Fig. 1-2.), wherein a first end of the connection device is connected to an interface of one firefighting device (Fig. 7, 24), and a third end of the connection device is connected to the battery (Fig. 7 shows the third end (25) connected to the battery via 27 and 34.).
Li does not disclose, a second end of the connection device is connected to the detection device.
However, Thomas further teaches a prior art comparable firefighting system (Fig. 2, 30) wherein the firefighting system comprises a connection device (Fig. 2, 32), wherein a first end of the connection device (Annotated Fig. 2 of claim 5) is connected to an interface of one firefighting device (Annotated Fig. 2 of claim 5; Fig. 2, 16), a second end of the connection device (Annotated Fig. 2 of claim 5) is connected to a detection device (Fig. 2, 34; Para. 0022 – “pressure sensor”; The second end is connected via to the second connection device via 36), and a third end of the connection device is connected to a piping network (Fig. 2, “FPS”; Abs. – “FPS piping network”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one known element (connection device; Fig. 2, 32) with a known function (opening and closing the device based on a control signal {Para. 0022-0025}) as taught by Thomas, by performing a simple substitution with another element (connection device; Fig. 7, {21-25}) disclosed by Li) and yielding the predictable result of opening the connection device when a fire is detected.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Ike, Thomas, Ling and Sung (WO 2014077536).
Regarding claim 8, Li in view of Ike, Thomas, and Ling teaches the firefighting system according to claim 6.
Li further discloses the system comprising a sensor (Ab. – “temperature sensing nozzle”) disposed in the fire extinguishing pipe (Ab. – “The inside of the temperature sensing nozzle is provided with a temperature sensing element”).
Li in view of Ike, Thomas, and Ling does not teach a valve coupled to the fire extinguishing pipe, wherein the control device is configured to open the valve in the fire extinguishing pipe to release the extinguishing agent into the housing when the sensor detects that a temperature is greater than or equal to the temperature threshold.
However, Sung teaches a prior art comparable device (Ti. – “Apparatus and Method for Preventing Fire in Lithium-Ion Battery”) comprising a valve coupled to in the fire extinguishing pipe (Para. 0046 – “The valve 35 is provided in the supply pipe 32”) and a sensor (Fig. 1, 20),
wherein a control device (Fig. 2, 40) is configured to open the valve in the fire extinguishing pipe to release the extinguishing agent into the housing (Para. 0060 – “the controller 40 drives the pump 34 and opens the valve 35 to inject the neutralizer stored in the neutralizer tank 31 to the battery cell.”) when the sensor detects that a temperature is greater than or equal to the temperature threshold (Para. 0063 – if the temperature of the battery cell is equal to or greater than the temperature reference value, the controller 40 controls the neutralizing-agent injector 30 to additionally inject the neutralizing agent into the battery cell (S50)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a valve coupled to the fire extinguishing pipe, wherein the control device is configured to open the valve in the fire extinguishing pipe to release the extinguishing agent into the housing when the sensor detects that a temperature is greater than or equal to the temperature threshold.) as taught by Sung, into the system taught by Li in view of Ike, Thomas, and Ling to allow for active control of the extinguishing agent via the control device while protecting the valve from damage because it is disposed inside the pipe and yielding the predictable result of extinguishing a fire.
Regarding claim 18, Li in view of Ike, Thomas, and Ling teaches the firefighting system according to claim 16.
Li further discloses the system comprising a sensor (Ab. – “temperature sensing nozzle”) disposed in the fire extinguishing pipe (Ab. – “The inside of the temperature sensing nozzle is provided with a temperature sensing element”).
Li in view of Ike, Thomas, and Ling does not teach a valve coupled to the fire extinguishing pipe, wherein the control device is configured to open the valve in the fire extinguishing pipe to release the extinguishing agent into the housing when the sensor detects that a temperature is greater than or equal to the temperature threshold.
However, Sung teaches a prior art comparable device (Ti. – “Apparatus and Method for Preventing Fire in Lithium-Ion Battery”) comprising a valve coupled to fire extinguishing pipe (Para. 0046 – “The valve 35 is provided in the supply pipe 32”) and a sensor (Fig. 1, 20),
wherein a control device (Fig. 2, 40) is configured to open the valve in the fire extinguishing pipe to release the extinguishing agent into the housing (Para. 0060 – “the controller 40 drives the pump 34 and opens the valve 35 to inject the neutralizer stored in the neutralizer tank 31 to the battery cell.”) when the sensor detects that a temperature is greater than or equal to the temperature threshold (Para. 0063 – if the temperature of the battery cell is equal to or greater than the temperature reference value, the controller 40 controls the neutralizing-agent injector 30 to additionally inject the neutralizing agent into the battery cell (S50)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a valve coupled to the fire extinguishing pipe, wherein the control device is configured to open the valve in the fire extinguishing pipe to release the extinguishing agent into the housing when the sensor detects that a temperature is greater than or equal to the temperature threshold.) as taught by Sung, into the system taught by Li in view of Ike, Thomas, and Ling to allow for active control of the extinguishing agent via the control device while protecting the valve from damage because it is disposed inside the pipe and yielding the predictable result of extinguishing a fire.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view Li in view of Ike, Thomas, and Walter (US 5,189,394).
Regarding claim 9, Li in view of Ike and Thomas teaches the firefighting system of claim 1, but does not the system further comprising a display device configured to display a schematic diagram of distribution of cabinets in an equipment room, and to display the warning information and a fault location when the firefighting system is faulty.
However, Walter teaches a prior art comparable device (Ab. – “A computer-based display apparatus is provided for a fire alarm system”) a display device (Fig. 1, 10) configured to display a schematic diagram of distribution of cabinets in an equipment room (Ab.), and to display the warning information and a fault location when the firefighting system is faulty (Col. 2: Ln. 67 – Col. 3: Ln. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (incorporation of a display device to a fire alarm system) as taught by Walter, into the system taught by Li in view of Ike and Thomas to provide a display system for a fire alarm system which is relatively simple and economic to implement and of general application (Col. 1: Ln. 56-59) and yielding the predictable result of a display device configured to display a schematic diagram of distribution of cabinets in an equipment room, and to display the warning information and a fault location when the firefighting system is faulty.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) , 4-9, and 16-18 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
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 ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 April 16, 2026
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights