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 .
In view of the appeal brief filed on 10/29/25, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/DEDEI K HAMMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
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 laminations being arranged in layers rotated relative to one another such that the pockets of the layers overlap but are not aligned as defined in claim 4 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Appeal Brief, pages 2-3, filed 10/29/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 7-10, 13-14 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Abiko, and claims 4-6, 11, 12 and 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Abiko in view of Chien have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Abiko, Asahi, Asaoka, and Yoshida, as detailed below.
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 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abiko (EP 3410573).
With respect to claim 7, Abiko teaches a rotor assembly (Figures 1-9, #1) comprising: a rotor core (1); and a resin cage (defined by resin material #4 extending though cavities #6 and connecting end caps #4a/c) including endcaps (4a/c) in contact with opposite ends of, and sandwiching, the rotor core (1), and a plurality of columns (defined by material #4 in cavities #6) extending through pockets (pockets defined by space #6 and space accommodating magnets #3) of the rotor core (1) and connected with the endcaps (4a/c).
With respect to claim 8, Abiko teaches wherein the rotor core (1) includes a plurality of magnets (3) disposed within the pockets such that the columns (defined by material #4 in cavities #6) secure the magnets (3) within the rotor core (1).
With respect to claim 10, Abiko teaches wherein the endcaps (4a/c) cover portions of the pockets (pockets defined by space #6 and space accommodating magnets #3) adjacent to the endcaps.
Claims 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asahi (8,922,083).
With respect to claim 7, Asahi teaches a rotor assembly (Figures 3-4, #3) comprising: a rotor core (51); and a resin cage (See annotated view of Figures 3-4, #101/102/103) including endcaps (102/103) in contact with opposite ends of, and sandwiching, the rotor core (51), and a plurality of columns (defined by #101 denoting portion of resin material #53 filling cavity portion on rear side of magnets #52 and connecting end caps #102/103) extending through pockets (pockets defined by space between adjacent rotor core portions #62 for accommodating magnets #52 and resin portion #103, best seen in Figures 3-4) of the rotor core (51) and connected with the endcaps (101/102).
PNG
media_image1.png
734
1252
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 8, Asahi teaches wherein the rotor core (51) includes a plurality of magnets (52) disposed within the pockets such that the columns (101) secure the magnets (52) within the rotor core (51).
With respect to claim 10, Abiko teaches wherein the endcaps (102/103) cover portions of the pockets (pockets defined by space between adjacent rotor core portions #62 for accommodating magnets #52 and resin portion #103, best seen in Figures 3-4) adjacent to the endcaps (102/103).
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.
Claims 1-3, 9, 13-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abiko (EP 3410573) in view of Asaoka (2024/0223034 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Abiko teaches a rotor assembly (Figures 1-9, #1) comprising: a plurality of laminations stacked to form a rotor core (#1 – Page 6, [0032]) that defines a plurality of pockets (pockets defined by space #6 and space accommodating magnets #3); a plurality of magnets (3) disposed within the pockets (pockets defined by space #6 and space accommodating magnets #3); and resin (4) filling cavities (6) defined by the pockets and magnets (3) to secure the magnets within the rotor core (1), and extending out of some of the pockets and away from opposite ends of the rotor core to form endcaps (4a/4c) that cover portions of the opposite ends such that the resin (4) forms a continuous cylindrical cage (see Figures 1 and 9) extending through the rotor core (1).
Abiko fails to teach wherein the plurality of laminations are stacked define coolant passageways in addition to the plurality of pockets, and wherein the endcaps define apertures in fluid communication with the coolant passageways.
Asaoka teaches a similar rotor (Figures 1-3B, #10) including a plurality of laminations stacked to form a rotor core (20 - [0033]) that defines a plurality of pockets (30, when combined) and coolant passageways (22a-f); a plurality of magnets (32) disposed within the pockets 30); and endcaps (50/52) endcaps that cover portions of the opposite ends and define apertures (54a-f/70a-f) in fluid communication with the coolant passageways (22a-f), so as to cool the magnets and stator coil ends when the motor operated ([0003]-[0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Abiko, with the apparatus of Asaoka so as to cool the magnets and stator coil ends when the motor operated (See Asaoka, [0003]-[0007]).
With respect to claim 2, Abiko teaches wherein the resin (4) filling the cavities (6) forms columns (see Figure 9) extending between and connected with the endcaps (4a/c).
With respect to claim 3, Abiko teaches wherein the columns (defined by material #4 in cavities #6) are perpendicular to the endcaps (4a/c).
With respect to claim 9, Abiko teaches the rotor assembly of claim 7.
Abiko fails to teach wherein the rotor core defines a plurality of coolant passageways and wherein the endcaps define a plurality of apertures in fluid communication with the coolant passageways.
Asaoka teaches a similar rotor (Figures 1-3B, #10) including a rotor core (20) that defines a plurality of coolant passageways (22a-f) and wherein similar endcaps (50/52) define a plurality of apertures (54a-f/70a-f) in fluid communication with the coolant passageways (22a-f), so as to cool the magnets and stator coil ends when the motor operated ([0003]-[0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Abiko, with the apparatus of Asaoka so as to cool the magnets and stator coil ends when the motor operated (See Asaoka, [0003]-[0007]).
With respect to claim 13, Abiko teaches a rotor assembly (Figures 1-9, #1) comprising: a plurality of laminations stacked to form a rotor core (#1 – Page 6, [0032]) that defines a plurality of pockets (pockets defined by space #6 and space accommodating magnets #3); a plurality of magnets (3) disposed within the pockets (pockets defined by space #6 and space accommodating magnets #3); and a molded cage (4) including a plurality of columns (defined by material #4 in cavities #6 connecting end caps #4a/c) securing the magnets (3) within the pockets, and a pair of endcaps (4a/c) covering portions of the pockets on opposite ends of the rotor core such that the endcaps are connected with the columns.
Abiko fails to teach wherein the plurality of laminations are stacked define coolant passageways in addition to the plurality of pockets, and wherein the endcaps define apertures in fluid communication with the coolant passageways.
Asaoka teaches a similar rotor (Figures 1-3B, #10) including a plurality of laminations stacked to form a rotor core (20 - [0033]) that defines a plurality of pockets (30, when combined) and coolant passageways (22a-f); a plurality of magnets (32) disposed within the pockets 30); and endcaps (50/52) endcaps that cover portions of the opposite ends and define apertures (54a-f/70a-f) in fluid communication with the coolant passageways (22a-f), so as to cool the magnets and stator coil ends when the motor operated ([0003]-[0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Abiko, with the apparatus of Asaoka so as to cool the magnets and stator coil ends when the motor operated (See Asaoka, [0003]-[0007]).
With respect to claim 14, Abiko teaches wherein the columns (defined by material #4 in cavities #6 connecting end caps #4a/c) are perpendicular to the endcaps (4a/c).
With respect to claim 17, Abiko teaches wherein the molded cage (4) includes resin ([0063]-[0068]).
With respect to claim 18, Abiko teaches wherein the rotor core (1) is disposed within an electric machine (100).
With respect to claim 19, Abiko teaches wherein the electric machine (100) is a motor.
With respect to Claim 20, Abiko teaches wherein the motor (100) is disposed within a vehicle (note it can be used in a four wheel steering system, which is inherently part of and within a vehicle – [0031]).
Claims 1-3, 9, 13-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asahi (8,922,083) in view of Asaoka (2024/0223034 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Asahi teaches a rotor assembly (See annotated view of Figures 3-4, #3, provided above) comprising: a plurality of laminations stacked to form a rotor core (#51- [0033]) that defines a plurality of pockets (pockets defined by space between adjacent rotor core portions #62 for accommodating magnets #52 and resin portion #103, best seen in Figures 3-4); a plurality of magnets (52) disposed within the pockets; and resin (53) filling cavities (portion of pocket filled with resin #53, defining portions #101) defined by the pockets and magnets (53) to secure the magnets within the rotor core (51), and extending out of some of the pockets and away from opposite ends of the rotor core to form endcaps (102/103) that cover portions of the opposite ends such that the resin (53) forms a continuous cylindrical cage (cage defined by portions #101/102/103) extending through the rotor core (51).
Asahi fails to teach wherein the plurality of laminations are stacked define coolant passageways in addition to the plurality of pockets, and wherein the endcaps define apertures in fluid communication with the coolant passageways.
Asaoka teaches a similar rotor (Figures 1-3B, #10) including a plurality of laminations stacked to form a rotor core (20 - [0033]) that defines a plurality of pockets (30, when combined) and coolant passageways (22a-f); a plurality of magnets (32) disposed within the pockets 30); and endcaps (50/52) endcaps that cover portions of the opposite ends and define apertures (54a-f/70a-f) in fluid communication with the coolant passageways (22a-f), so as to cool the magnets and stator coil ends when the motor operated ([0003]-[0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Asahi, with the apparatus of Asaoka so as to cool the magnets and stator coil ends when the motor operated (See Asaoka, [0003]-[0007]).
With respect to claim 2, Asahi teaches wherein the resin (53) filling the cavities forms columns (101) extending between and connected with the endcaps (102/103).
With respect to claim 3, Asahi teaches wherein the columns (101) are perpendicular to the endcaps (102/103).
With respect to claim 9, Asahi teaches the rotor assembly of claim 7.
Asahi fails to teach wherein the rotor core defines a plurality of coolant passageways and wherein the endcaps define a plurality of apertures in fluid communication with the coolant passageways.
Asaoka teaches a similar rotor (Figures 1-3B, #10) including a rotor core (20) that defines a plurality of coolant passageways (22a-f) and wherein similar endcaps (50/52) define a plurality of apertures (54a-f/70a-f) in fluid communication with the coolant passageways (22a-f), so as to cool the magnets and stator coil ends when the motor operated ([0003]-[0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Asahi, with the apparatus of Asaoka so as to cool the magnets and stator coil ends when the motor operated (See Asaoka, [0003]-[0007]).
With respect to claim 13, Asahi teaches a rotor assembly (See annotated view of Figures 3-4, #3, provided above) comprising: a plurality of laminations stacked to form a rotor core (#51- [0033]) that defines a plurality of pockets (pockets defined by space between adjacent rotor core portions #62 for accommodating magnets #52 and resin portion #103, best seen in Figures 3-4); a plurality of magnets (52) disposed within the pockets; and a molded cage (101/102/103) including a plurality of columns (101) securing the magnets (52) within the pockets, and a pair of endcaps (102/103) covering portions of the pockets on opposite ends of the rotor core (51) such that the endcaps (102/103) are connected with the columns (101).
Asahi fails to teach wherein the plurality of laminations are stacked define coolant passageways in addition to the plurality of pockets, and wherein the endcaps define apertures in fluid communication with the coolant passageways.
Asaoka teaches a similar rotor (Figures 1-3B, #10) including a plurality of laminations stacked to form a rotor core (20 - [0033]) that defines a plurality of pockets (30, when combined) and coolant passageways (22a-f); a plurality of magnets (32) disposed within the pockets 30); and endcaps (50/52) endcaps that cover portions of the opposite ends and define apertures (54a-f/70a-f) in fluid communication with the coolant passageways (22a-f), so as to cool the magnets and stator coil ends when the motor operated ([0003]-[0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Asahi, with the apparatus of Asaoka so as to cool the magnets and stator coil ends when the motor operated (See Asaoka, [0003]-[0007]).
With respect to claim 14, Asahi teaches wherein the columns (101) are perpendicular to the endcaps (102/103).
With respect to claim 17, Asahi teaches wherein the molded cage (101/102/103) includes resin (53).
With respect to claim 18, Asahi teaches wherein the rotor core (51) is disposed within an electric machine (1).
With respect to claim 19, Abiko teaches wherein the electric machine (1) is a motor.
With respect to Claim 20, Abiko teaches wherein the motor (1) is disposed within a vehicle (Col 4, Lines 62-65).
Claims 4-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asahi (8,922,083) in view of Asaoka (2024/0223034 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Yoshida (11,146,154).
With respect to claim 4, Asahi as modified teaches the rotor assembly of claim 1.
Asahi as modified fails to teach wherein the laminations are arranged in layers rotated relative to one another such that the pockets of the layers overlap but are not aligned.
Yoshida teaches a similar rotor core (Figures 1-3 and 8-11, #2) having similar laminations (defined by individual sheets #ES or lamination stack #10 – Col. 2, Lines 33-50) and pockets (16), wherein the laminations are arranged in layers rotated relative to one another such that the pockets (16) of the layers overlap but are not aligned (clearly seen in Figures, Col. 2, Lines 40-50), for the purpose of offsetting the thickness deviation of the stack (Col. 2, Lines 40-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Asahi as modified, with the apparatus of Yoshida so as to rotationally stack the laminations in order to offset the thickness deviation of the stack (See Yoshida, Col. 2, Lines 40-50).
With respect to claim 5, Asahi as modified and Yoshida teach wherein the resin (Yoshida, #14, when combined) filling the cavities (Yoshida, of pockets #16, when combined) forms what is depicted as having zig-zag columns extending between and connected with the endcaps (of Asahi, #102/103, when combined), although the shape can be changed according to the use and required performance of the motor (Col. 3, Lines 37-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the shape of the column is a stair-step configuration, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Yoshida. Further, because the positions/shape of opening #16 is variable, forming a stair-step configuration would be an obvious matter of design choice depending on the use and required performance of the motor (Col. 3, Lines 37-54)
With respect to claim 6, Asahi as modified and Yoshida teach wherein the resin (Yoshida, #14, when combined) filling the cavities (Yoshida, of pockets #16, when combined) forms zig-zag columns extending between and connected with the endcaps (of Asahi, #102/103, when combined).
With respect to claim 15, Asahi as modified teaches the rotor assembly of claim 13.
Asahi as modified fails to teach wherein the columns have a stair-step configuration.
Yoshida teaches a similar rotor core (Figures 1-3 and 8-11, #2) having similar laminations (defined by individual sheets #ES or lamination stack #10 – Col. 2, Lines 33-50) and pockets (16), wherein the laminations are arranged in layers rotated relative to one another (clearly seen in Figures, Col. 2, Lines 40-50) such that the pockets (16) of the layers overlap but are not aligned, such that the columns (defined by resin #14 within pockets #16, when combined) are depicted as having a zig-zag configuration, although the shape can be changed according to the use and required performance of the motor (Col. 3, Lines 37-54), for the purpose of offsetting the thickness deviation of the stack (Col. 2, Lines 40-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Asahi as modified, with the apparatus of Yoshida so as to rotationally stack the laminations in order to offset the thickness deviation of the stack (See Yoshida, Col. 2, Lines 40-50).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the shape of the column is a stair-step configuration, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Yoshida. Further, because the positions/shape of opening #16 is variable, forming a stair-step configuration would be an obvious matter of design choice depending on the use and required performance of the motor (Col. 3, Lines 37-54)
With respect to claim 16, Asahi as modified teaches the rotor assembly of claim 13.
Asahi as modified fails to teach wherein the columns have a zig-zag configuration.
Yoshida teaches a similar rotor core (Figures 1-3 and 8-11, #2) having similar laminations (defined by individual sheets #ES or lamination stack #10 – Col. 2, Lines 33-50) and pockets (16), wherein the laminations are arranged in layers rotated relative to one another (clearly seen in Figures, Col. 2, Lines 40-50) such that the pockets (16) of the layers overlap but are not aligned, such that the columns (defined by resin #14 within pockets #16, when combined) have a zig-zag configuration, for the purpose of offsetting the thickness deviation of the stack (Col. 2, Lines 40-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Asahi as modified, with the apparatus of Yoshida so as to rotationally stack the laminations in order to offset the thickness deviation of the stack (See Yoshida, Col. 2, Lines 40-50).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asahi (8,922,083) in view of Yoshida (11,146,154).
With respect to claim 11, Asahi teaches the rotor assembly of claim 7.
Asahi fails to teach wherein the columns have a stair-step configuration.
Yoshida teaches a similar rotor core (Figures 1-3 and 8-11, #2) having similar laminations (defined by individual sheets #ES or lamination stack #10 – Col. 2, Lines 33-50) and pockets (16), wherein the laminations are arranged in layers rotated relative to one another (clearly seen in Figures, Col. 2, Lines 40-50) such that the pockets (16) of the layers overlap but are not aligned, such that the columns (defined by resin #14 within pockets #16, when combined) are depicted as having a zig-zag configuration, although the shape can be changed according to the use and required performance of the motor (Col. 3, Lines 37-54), for the purpose of offsetting the thickness deviation of the stack (Col. 2, Lines 40-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Asahi, with the apparatus of Yoshida so as to rotationally stack the laminations in order to offset the thickness deviation of the stack (See Yoshida, Col. 2, Lines 40-50).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the shape of the column is a stair-step configuration, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Yoshida. Further, because the positions/shape of opening #16 is variable, forming a stair-step configuration would be an obvious matter of design choice depending on the use and required performance of the motor (Col. 3, Lines 37-54)
With respect to claim 12, Asahi teaches the rotor assembly of claim 7.
Asahi fails to teach wherein the columns have a zig-zag configuration.
Yoshida teaches a similar rotor core (Figures 1-3 and 8-11, #2) having similar laminations (defined by individual sheets #ES or lamination stack #10 – Col. 2, Lines 33-50) and pockets (16), wherein the laminations are arranged in layers rotated relative to one another (clearly seen in Figures, Col. 2, Lines 40-50) such that the pockets (16) of the layers overlap but are not aligned, such that the columns (defined by resin #14 within pockets #16, when combined) have a zig-zag configuration, for the purpose of offsetting the thickness deviation of the stack (Col. 2, Lines 40-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Asahi, with the apparatus of Yoshida so as to rotationally stack the laminations in order to offset the thickness deviation of the stack (See Yoshida, Col. 2, Lines 40-50).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pertinent arts of record relating to Applicant’s disclosure are disclosed in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY AUSTIN LUKS whose telephone number is (571)272-2707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00-5:00).
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
/JEREMY A LUKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837