Status of Claims
In the communication filed on 03/04/2026, claims 1, and 3-18 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 10, and 12-14 are amended. No claims are new. Claim 2 is presently cancelled.
Response to Arguments
The prior objections to the Drawings are withdrawn due to the amendments. An annotated copy of the replacement drawings filed 03/04/2026 is attached to indicate the replacement drawings are approved.
The prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn due to the amendments and explanation provided in the applicant’s response.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 (incorporating original claim 2) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The applicant’s arguments are discussed with respect to Chen et al. (US 2024/0333013 A1).
The applicant argues (pp. 20, 1st para.) that “Chen does not disclose "adding the second number of charge pumps to collectively provide the second charging current to the battery in response to the first charging current being greater than a first current threshold value; and continuously using the first number of charge pumps to provide the first charging current to the battery in response to the first charging current being less than or equal to the first current threshold value" as recited in amended claim 1”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner interprets that Chen’s method controls the first and second number of charge pumps as defined by the claim language in response to the first charging current. Specific arguments made by the applicant are addressed as follows.
Applicant argument (pp. 19, 1st para.): “the scenario "the first charging current being greater than a first current threshold value" cannot occur based on the Examiner's analysis”
The applicant paraphrases the prior action’s item mapping to say that Chen’s first charging current is “8 A to 10 A”, the first current threshold is “12 A”, and the second charging current is “20 A”.
The examiner explains that the cited “8 A to 10 A” is an example preferred range for the first charging current output by the first number of charge pumps disclosed by Chen. Further, the cited “20 A” is an example value for the second charging current that is collectively supplied by the combination of the first and second numbers of charge pumps disclosed by Chen.
When the first charging current output from the first number of charge pumps rises to be greater than the first current threshold value of “12 A” (i.e., greater than the “6 A” limit per charge pump per Chen’s ¶ [97]), the method responds by controlling to add the second number of charge pumps.
Applicant argument (pp. 19, 2nd para.): “the first charging current "8 A to 10 A" represents the current provided by the first number of charge pumps (two "125" in Chen). The current provided by the two '125' will not exceed 12 A, and thus the first charging current will not increase to "20 A" Consequently, the opinion in the office action stating "the first charging current ('8 A to 10 A' provided by the first two '125') being greater (grows to '20 A' total output current per [99])" is inaccurate”
The examiner asserts that, in Chen’s method, any output current greater than 12 A will result in the second number of charge pumps being added. Chen’s ¶ [99] further supports that the total output current can grow to 20 A. Thus, the total output current, which is uncontrolled by the method, can grow above the first current threshold value of 12 A and the method will respond by adding additional charge pumps to supply the current below the maximum 6 A each.
Applicant argument (pp. 19, 3rd para.): “the Examiner utilizes the inventive concept of the present application to derive the first current threshold, rather than directly stating that Chen discloses the first current threshold”
In each of the claimed invention and Chen’s disclosure, the method controls the plurality of charge pumps in response to output load current demands (such as being above the first current threshold of 12 A, derived from the max of 6 A per charge pump per Chen ¶ [97]). Thus, the first current threshold value of 12 A is inherently present to operate in accordance with Chen’s explicitly disclosed maximum current of “6 A” per charge pump (¶ [97]). Thus, a first current threshold is present in Chen’s method, even though not explicitly referred to in the same phraseology as the claim.
Applicant argument (pp. 19, 3rd para.): “Chen fails to explicitly state under what circumstances the current is adjusted from 8A-10A to 20A”.
In neither the claimed invention nor in Chen does the charging current get actively adjusted by the method from the “first charging current” (Chen’s output current from two charge pumps, exemplified and cited as “8 A to 10 A”) to the “second charging current” (Chen’s output current from four charge pumps, exemplified and cited as “20 A”). These are simply terms for current output from the first number of charge pumps vs. the collective combination of the first/second numbers of charge pumps. In each of the claimed invention and Chen’s disclosure, the plurality of charge pumps act as voltage sources that respond to current load demands (such as being above the first current threshold of 12 A, derived from the max of 6 A per charge pump per Chen ¶ [97]). See amended claim 1, lines 12-14: “adding the second number of charge pumps to collectively provide the second charging current to the battery in response to the first charging current being greater than a first current threshold value”. Also see the instant application’s Fig. 4, step 402 to support this explanation of the control methodology.
Applicant argument (pp. 20, 1st para.): “Chen does not disclose "adding the second number of charge pumps to collectively provide the second charging current to the battery in response to the first charging current being greater than a first current threshold value; and continuously using the first number of charge pumps to provide the first charging current to the battery in response to the first charging current being less than or equal to the first current threshold value" as recited in amended claim 1 (emphasis added)”
The case of “first charging current being greater than a first current threshold value” is already discussed in detail supra. For the case of “the first charging current being less than or equal to the first current threshold value”, there do not appear to be any more specific arguments. Thus, the claim 1 rejection is maintained.
Thus, the applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and its dependents are respectfully refuted.
The prior action (Non-Final Rejection, 12/12/2025) indicates the subject matter of claim 10 as allowable. Claim 10 has since been amended to resolve the 112(b) rejections. Thus, claim 10 and its dependent claims 11, 17, and 18 are allowed, as detailed herein.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 12 and its dependent claims 13-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Independent claim 12 has been amended to incorporate similar subject matter to that of claim 6, which was indicated as allowable in the prior action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12, line 16 recites “the plurality of charge pumps”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claim language.
Claim 12, line 25 recites “remaining charge pumps”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claim language.
Claims 13-14 are further rejected for their dependency on other rejected claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2024/0333013 A1).
NOTE: Chen has an effective filing date of 08/17/2021 due to foreign priority from the foreign application CN 202110942372.6.
Regarding independent Claim 1, Chen discloses a method (¶ [35]: “battery power supply adjusting method”; Fig. 17) for charging a terminal apparatus (¶ [150]: “terminal device may be a mobile phone, a tablet, a mobile computer or other rechargeable terminal devices”) comprising a battery (“double-cell battery 010”; Figs. 1, 5) and a plurality of charge pumps (“N charge pump circuit submodules 125” within “first charge pump circuit module 120” per ¶ [96]; Fig. 5), the method comprising the following.
Chen further discloses controlling (control provided by “battery charging and discharging control module 140”; Figs. 1, 5; ¶ [73]: “140 is a control module for controlling … the first charge pump circuit module 120”; ¶ [96]: “controlled ends of the N charge pump circuit submodules 125 are respectively connected to … 140”) a first number of charge pumps (¶ [99]: “two charge pump circuit submodules 125 are arranged in parallel”) to provide a first charging current (¶ [99]: “charging current is 8 A to 10 A”) to the battery (010).
Chen further discloses adding a second number of charge pumps (two additional “125” for a total of four per ¶ [99]; the number of connected “125” within “120” can dynamically adjust in response to charging current per ¶ [101]) according to the first charging current (¶ [99]: “8 A to 10 A” provided by the first two “125”) to collectively provide a second charging current (¶ [99]: “charging current is 20 A”) to the battery (010), until a number of charge pumps (¶ [99]: “four charge pump circuit submodules are arranged in parallel”) supplying power (¶ [99]: “each … 125 shares the charging current”) to the battery (010) reaches a total number (N, may be any number including four) of the plurality of charge pumps (125).
Chen further discloses the second charging current (“20 A”; ¶ [99]) is greater than the first charging current (“8 A to 10 A”; ¶ [99]).
As addressed supra, Chen discloses adding the second number of charge pumps (two additional “125” for a total of four per ¶ [99]) according to the first charging current (¶ [99]: “8 A to 10 A” provided by the first two “125”) to collectively provide the second charging current (“20 A”; ¶ [99]) to the battery (010).
Chen further discloses adding the second number of charge pumps (two additional “125”) to collectively provide the second charging current (“20 A”) to the battery (010) in response to the first charging current (“8 A to 10 A” provided by the first two “125”) being greater (grows to “20 A” total output current per ¶ [99]) than a first current threshold value (per ¶ [97], max current per “125” is “6 A”; thus, the first current threshold value is 12 Amps for the first number of charge pumps being two; thus, when the current draw increases to “20 A”, the method adds two additional charge pumps for a total of four charge pumps).
Chen further discloses continuously using the first number of charge pumps (¶ [99]: “when the charging current is 8 A to 10 A, two charge pump circuit modules … shares the charging current of 4 A to 5 A”) to provide the first charging current (“8 A to 10 A”) to the battery (010) in response to the first charging current (“8 A to 10 A”) being less than or equal to the first current threshold value (12 Amps, derived from “6A” max per “125”).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2024/0333013 A1) in view of the DigiKey article (DigiKey's North American Editors, Designing in USB Type-C and Using Power Delivery for Rapid Charging, 03/15/2017, DigiKey).
NOTE: As of the current date, the DigiKey article is available for download at the following hyperlink:
https://www.digikey.com/en/articles/designing-in-usb-type-c-and-using-power-delivery-for-rapid-charging
Regarding Claim 3, Chen discloses the method according to claim 1.
Chen further discloses the first number of charge pumps (two “125”) provide the first charging current (“8 A to 10 A”) to the battery (010) based on a first input voltage (“5 V”; ¶ [78]) and a first input current (“1 A to 1.5 A”; ¶ [78]) provided by an external charging device (“AC/DC adapter 020”; Figs. 1-2, 5; ¶ [78]: “pluggable USB interface in a computer”).
Chen further discloses continuously using the first number of charge pumps (¶ [99]: “when the charging current is 8 A to 10 A, two charge pump circuit modules … shares the charging current of 4 A to 5 A”) to provide the first charging current (“8 A to 10 A”) to the battery (010), the method further comprises the following.
Chen further discloses regulating (via the “boost control protocol”; ¶ [80, 140-144]) the first input voltage (“5 V” typically input by “020” per ¶ [78], when not in “boost control protocol”) to obtain a second input voltage (“dynamic voltage”, output by “020” during “boost control protocol”; ¶ [80, 140-144]).
Chen further discloses regulating the first input current (“1 A to 1.5 A” per ¶ [78]) to obtain a second input current (“dynamic current”, output by “020” during “boost control protocol”; ¶ [80, 140-144]).
Chen further discloses controlling the first number of charge pumps (first two “125”) to provide the first charging current (¶ [99]: “charging current is 8 A to 10 A”) to the battery (010) based on the second input voltage (“dynamic voltage” input from “020”) and the second input current (“dynamic current” input from “020”), until the first charging current (“8 A to 10 A” provided by the first two “125”) is greater than the first current threshold value (per ¶ [97], max current per “125” is “6 A”; thus, the first current threshold value is 12 Amps for the first number of charge pumps being two; thus, when the current draw increases to “20 A”, the method adds two additional charge pumps for a total of four charge pumps).
Chen is silent to “the second input voltage being greater than the first input voltage” and “the second input current being greater than the first input current”.
DigiKey teaches a similar method of regulating the first input voltage (typical: “5 volts at 3 amps” per the second paragraph) to obtain a second input voltage (“maximum of 20 volts at 5 amps” per the second paragraph), the second input voltage (20 volts) being greater than the first input voltage (5 volts).
DigiKey teaches a similar method of regulating the first input current (“3 amps” per the second paragraph) to obtain a second input current (“5 amps” per the second paragraph), the second input current (5 amps) being greater than the first input current (3 amps).
DigiKey teaches this boost operation of an external charging device, also USB-based, to improve the speed of charging by supporting the input of higher power levels (page 3, section: “Pushing up the power”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method and external charging device disclosed by Chen for the second input voltage to be greater than the first input voltage and for the second input current to be greater than the first input current, as taught by DigiKey, to improve the speed of charging the battery of the terminal apparatus by supporting the input of higher power levels.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2024/0333013 A1) in view of Khouri et al. (US 2003/0107428 A1; hereinafter “Kho”).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen discloses the method according to claim 1.
As addressed supra, Chen discloses adding the second number of charge pumps according to the first charging current to collectively provide the second charging current to the battery.
Chen indicates (¶ [96-101]) that this process is repeatable by adding an additional number of charge pumps according the previous charging current to collectively provide a larger charging current to the battery, but is silent to the specifics of a third number of charge pumps.
Chen does not disclose that after adding the second number of charge pumps, “the method further comprises adding a third number of charge pumps according to the second charging current to collectively provide a third charging current to the battery until the number of the charge pumps supplying power to the battery reaches the total number of the plurality of charge pumps, in response to the number of the charge pumps supplying power to the battery not reaching the total number of the plurality of charge pumps, wherein the third charging current is greater than the second charging current”.
Kho teaches (see annotated Figs. 6-7, included infra) that after adding the second number of charge pumps (added one additional “elementary charge pump circuit” of “stages 2-5” for a total of three charge pumps) according to the first charging current (see annotated Fig. 6) to collectively provide the second charging current (see annotated Fig. 6) to the load (“load L”; Figs. 1-2; ¶ [10]; akin to a battery, per the note included infra), the method (¶ [3]: “method of generating a substantially constant voltage signal whose voltage exceeds a supply voltage reference”) further comprises the following.
NOTE: Though Kho teaches the charging currents are provided to a load, rather than a battery as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the load is similar to a battery in that each receives current from the parallel charge pumps. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Kho’s teachings are also applicable to charge pumps that provide charging currents to a battery.
Kho further teaches adding a third number of charge pumps (adds one additional “elementary charge pump circuit” for a total of four charge pumps) according to the second charging current (see annotated Fig. 6) to collectively provide a third charging current (max value of “IOUT”; see annotated Fig. 6) to the load (“L”) until the number of the charge pumps supplying power (four charge pumps supplying power for max “IOUT”) to the load (“L”) reaches the total number (four) of the plurality of charge pumps (“elementary charge pump circuit” of “stages 2-5”), in response to the number of the charge pumps supplying power (three were supplying the second charging current; thus the fourth is added to supply the third charging current, max “IOUT”) to the load (“L”) not reaching the total number (four) of the plurality of charge pumps (“elementary charge pump circuit” of “stages 2-5”).
Kho further teaches the third charging current (max “IOUT”; see annotated Fig. 6) is greater than the second charging current (see annotated Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
703
1386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
958
1269
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kho further teaches the addition of a third number of charge pumps in parallel with the other charge pumps to collectively provide a third charging current to supply higher output current (¶ [24]) and to more quickly respond to higher current demand (¶ [78]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Chen to incorporate the addition of a third number of charge pumps in parallel with the first and second numbers of charge pumps to collectively provide a third charging current, as taught by Kho, to more quickly supply higher charging current to the battery.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Chen and Kho teaches the method according to claim 4.
The combination of Chen and Kho further teaches adding the third number of charge pumps (third number, one, incorporated from Kho in addition to the first and second numbers, four, of Chen) according to the second charging current (Chen: “20 A”) to collectively provide the third charging current (third charging current incorporated from Kho to be higher than second charging current “20 A” of Chen) to the battery (Chen: 010).
Chen further discloses that any current threshold for the charging current output by the parallel charge pumps is based on a multiple of 6 amps per charge pump. Thus, Chen sets charging current threshold values for any higher numbers of charge pumps.
Following the incorporation of the third number of charge pumps to collectively provide the third charging current, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by the combination of Chen and Kho to incorporate a second charging current threshold value as a function (6 Amps multiplied by number of active charge pumps) of the total of the first, second, and third numbers of charge pumps, as further taught by Chen, to prevent overheating of the charge pumps (Chen ¶ [97]).
Thus, the combination of Chen and Kho teaches adding the third number of charge pumps (third number, one additional, incorporated from Kho in addition to the sum of the first and second numbers, four, of Chen; thus there is now a total of five charge pumps “125” actively supplying charging current in Chen’s method, modified by Kho) to collectively provide the third charging current (approximately 25 amps due to Chen’s teaching of 5 A per charge pump; Chen’s ¶ [99]: each charge pump circuit submodule 125 shares the charging current of 5 A”) to the battery (Chen: 010), in response to the second charging current (up to 24 amps output from four “125”) being greater than a second current threshold value (24 Amps based on Chen’s 6 A limit per charge pump; Chen ¶ [97]).
The combination of Chen and Kho further teaches continuously using the first number of charge pumps and the second number of charge pumps (Chen’s first and second numbers, each two, sum to “four charge pump circuit submodules … in parallel” per ¶ [99]) to collectively provide the second charging current (Chen ¶ [99]: “charging current is 20 A”) to the battery (Chen: 010), in response to the second charging current (Chen: “20 A”) being less than or equal to the second current threshold value (24 Amps, per Chen’s teaching of 6 amps max per “125”; Chen ¶ [97]).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2024/0333013 A1) in view of Jia (US 2021/0194268 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Chen discloses the method according to claim 1.
Chen further discloses a terminal apparatus (¶ [150]: “terminal device may be a mobile phone, a tablet, a mobile computer or other rechargeable terminal devices”).
Chen does not disclose the terminal apparatus comprises “a processor; and a memory storing an instruction executable by the processor, wherein the processor is configured to perform the method according to claim 1”.
Jia teaches a terminal apparatus (“electronic device 100”; Figs. 6, 10), comprising: a processor (¶ [178]: “program is executed by a processor, … to implement the wireless charging method”); and a memory (¶ [182]: various types of “read-only memory”) storing an instruction (¶ [182]: “program”) executable by the processor (¶ [178]: “program is executed by a processor), wherein the processor is configured to perform (¶ [178, 184]) a method (“wireless charging method”; Fig. 13).
Like the method of claim 1, the method executed by the processor taught by Jia is also for charging a terminal apparatus (100; Figs. 6, 10) comprising a battery (101; Fig. 6) and a plurality of charge pumps (113; Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the terminal apparatus and method disclosed by Chen to incorporate a processor to execute the method and a memory to store an instruction to perform the method, as taught by Jia, to provide a physical embodiment to perform the method using common software and firmware technologies (Jia ¶ [182-184]).
Regarding Claim 16, Chen discloses the method according to claim 1.
Chen does not disclose “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein an instruction that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform the method according to claim 1”.
Jia teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (¶ [178]: “non-transitory computer readable storage medium having a wireless charging program stored on”) having stored therein an instruction (¶ [178]: “wireless charging program”) that, when executed by a processor (¶ [178]: “program is executed by a processor), causes the processor to perform (¶ [178, 184]) a method (“wireless charging method”; Fig. 13).
Like the method of claim 1, the method executed by the processor taught by Jia is also for charging a terminal apparatus (100; Figs. 6, 10) comprising a battery (101; Fig. 6) and a plurality of charge pumps (113; Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the terminal apparatus and method disclosed by Chen to incorporate a processor to execute the method and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to store an instruction to perform the method, as taught by Jia, to provide a physical embodiment to perform the method using common software and firmware technologies (Jia ¶ [182-184]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 6-9 would be allowable for the reasons set forth in the prior action (Non-Final Rejection, 12/12/2025).
Claims 10-11 and 17-18 are allowed for the reasons set forth in the prior action (Non-Final Rejection, 12/12/2025).
Claims 12-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 12, though the prior art teaches a terminal apparatus including a battery, a charging interface, three charge pumps, a charging chip, and a processor configured to supply power via the charge pumps to the batter and obtain cut-voltage, cut-off current, and current battery voltage in response to the three charge pumps supplying power to the battery, it fails to teach the inclusion of and the combination with “reduce a number of charge pumps according to a second charging current, the current battery voltage and the cut-off voltage, wherein the second charging current is collectively provided by the plurality of charge pumps for the battery: and control remaining charge pumps after reduction to provide a fourth charging current to the battery until a current difference between the fourth charging current and the cut-off current is less than or equal to a current difference threshold value, and stop control over the provision of the fourth charging current to the battery by the remaining charge pumps after reduction, wherein the fourth charging current is less than the second charging current”.
Claims 13-14 would be allowable due to dependency on Claim 12.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Daniel P McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM Eastern.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/DANIEL P MCFARLAND/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights