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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/29/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “on” in the “positioned on ahead of the battery” appears in line 5 and is grammatically incorrect. The word “on” is improper in this context and should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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 1 recites the term “more” in line 15 (clause 5). The term “more” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “more” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This relative terminology should be written respect to another part. For examination purpose, the claim is interpreted to mean that a battery module of the battery modules positioned on closer to a rear of the vehicle in the front-rear direction is more cooled than a battery module positioned closer to the front of the vehicle by the heating medium. Applicant is advised to amend the claim to clearly define the comparative relationship.
Claims 2-9 are similarly rejected for depending upon claim 1.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN 110435394 A, citations from enclosed machine translation) and further in view of Vakilimoghaddam et al. (US 20210247145 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches a cooling structure (page 3, lines 18-20, first cooling method to the thirty-first cooling method) for a battery mounted on a vehicle (page 1, lines 13-17, Fig. 5, battery pack 36 in vehicle), the cooling structure comprises: a battery assembly comprises battery modules (page 8, line 59, two layers of battery pack); an air inlet positioned on ahead of the battery assembly in the front-rear direction (intake chamber 28 in Fig. 5; intake compartment 7 in Fig. 2), the air inlet being configured to allow outside air to blow through the air inlet during traveling of the vehicle (Fig.2, Embodiment 3, page 36, line 35); a heat exchanger (heat exchanger in page 8, line 45); and a cooling passage configured to allow a heating medium for cooling the battery modules (page 31, line 21-22: flow channels by working medium) to circulate between the battery assembly and the heat exchanger (page 26, lines 50-52, fluid machine (fluid device with air flow path) and a heat exchanger system). Xu does not explicitly teach a limitation wherein the battery modules are arranged along a front-rear direction of the vehicle. Xu does show in Fig. 5 the battery pack 36 having a longitude extending in the front-rear direction of the vehicle, and as cited above, the pack 36 containing two layers of modules therein. However, Vakilimoghaddam explicitly teaches in Fig. 1 battery cells 2 arranged adjacently (i.e., layered) in the longitudinal y-direction within the overall module 4, further teaching in [0036] that the battery cells 2 are electrically connected together, the battery module 4 is electrically connected to other battery modules of the vehicle battery, and that the number and arrangement of the battery cells 2 and module(s) 4 supported on the heat exchanger may differ from that shown. Accordingly, Vakilimoghaddam teaches toward the arrangement direction of battery modules interconnected within a vehicle battery pack being an obvious design choice within the ambit of a person having ordinary skill in the art. Further, Xu and Vakilimoghaddam are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of cooling structures for vehicle batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to arrange the layered battery modules within the pack 36 of modified Xu to be in the front-rear (longitudinal) direction of the vehicle in order to meet design requirements and expect functionality with the cooling structure, as taught toward by Vakilimoghaddam. It is an obvious design choice and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See also MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Further regarding claim 1, Xu does not explicitly teach another limitation wherein the battery assembly is configured so that a battery module of the battery modules positioned on closer to a rear of the vehicle in the front-rear direction is more cooled than a battery module positioned closer to the front of the vehicle by the heating medium. However, Vakilimoghaddam teaches a cooling structure ([0002]) comprises a battery assembly comprises battery modules ([0036], Fig. 1, battery cells 2 and module(s) 4), wherein temperature non-uniformity develops due to the heat transfer fluid being at a higher temperature at the outlet than at the inlet ([0007]). Vakilimoghaddam further teaches that the longitudinal dimension of the Liquid cooled heat exchanger may be oriented in the y-direction or another direction ([0044]), and that the direction of fluid flow may be reversed ([0045]), such that the locations of maximum and minimum temperatures along the cooling passage may change (Fig. 6; [0045]). Vakilimoghaddam teaches that, to improve temperature uniformity across surfaces in contact with the battery cells, portions of the battery assembly proximate to higher-temperature regions of the cooling passage, such as regions proximate to the outlet, should receive increased cooling by the heating medium ([0007], [0008], [0049]). Thus, battery modules positioned closer to the outlet or otherwise within higher-temperature regions are configured to be cooled more than battery modules positioned closer to the inlet.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cooling structure of Xu in view of Vakilimoghaddam such that battery modules positioned in higher-temperature regions of the cooling passage receive increased cooling by the heating medium. In Xu, where the battery modules are arranged along a front–rear direction of the vehicle, the higher-temperature region of the cooling passage corresponds to battery modules positioned closer to the rear of the vehicle as they are closer to the outlet (Fig. 5, port 39 from Xu). Accordingly, battery modules positioned closer to the rear of the vehicle would be cooled more than a battery module positioned closer to the front of the vehicle by the heating medium in order to improve temperature uniformity across surfaces in contact with the battery cells ([0008] from Vakilimoghaddam).
Regarding claim 2, Xu teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Xu further teaches that the cooling structure further comprises passage plates (air guide plates in page 23, lines 45-60) that partially constitute the cooling passage (page 23, line 56, the flow channel is provided with a hollow air guide plate). Xu fails to explicitly disclose limitations wherein passage plates face the battery modules and the passage plates include a first passage plate and a second passage plate positioned closer to the rear of the vehicle than the first passage plate, the second passage plate has a greater passage volume than the first passage plate. However, Vakilimoghaddam teaches limitations wherein passage plates face battery modules (Liquid cooled heat exchanger 10 face battery modules 4 in Fig. 1, [0035]), and the passage plates include a first passage plate and a second passage plate ([0009], [0045], plurality of fluid flow passages in a plate, 34A, 34B, 34C in Fig. 3). Vakilimoghaddam teaches that temperature non-uniformity develops along the cooling passage due to the heat transfer fluid being at a higher temperature at the outlet than at the inlet ([0007]). Vakilimoghaddam further teaches that the longitudinal dimension of the liquid-cooled heat exchanger may be oriented in the y-direction or another direction ([0044]), and that the direction of fluid flow may be reversed ([0045]), such that the locations of maximum and minimum temperatures along the cooling passage may change (Fig. 6; [0045]). To address this temperature non-uniformity, Vakilimoghaddam teaches varying the widths of fluid flow passages along the longitudinal direction to balance pressure drop and improve temperature uniformity ([0049]). As taught in Vakilimoghaddam, fluid flow passages located closer to higher-temperature regions, such as regions proximate to the outlet, are formed with greater widths than passages located closer to the inlet, thereby allowing increased flow and enhanced cooling in those regions. Because passage volume is a function of passage cross-sectional area and length, increasing the width of a passage plate necessarily results in an increased passage volume for that passage plate relative to a passage plate having a smaller width but similar length. Thus, Vakilimoghaddam teaches passage plates associated with higher-temperature regions having a greater passage volume than passage plates associated with lower-temperature regions, even though passage volume is not expressly recited ([0049]). Vakilimoghaddam further teaches that this arrangement improves temperature uniformity across surfaces in contact with the battery cells ([0008]). In addition, as discussed in claim 1 above, Vakilimoghaddam teaches toward the arrangement direction of battery modules interconnected within a vehicle battery pack being an obvious design choice within the ambit of a person having ordinary skill in the art ([0036]).
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the passage plates of Xu, in view of Vakilimoghaddam, such that passage plates positioned proximate to higher-temperature regions of the cooling passage are formed with greater widths and, consequently, greater passage volumes, in order to improve temperature uniformity across surfaces in contact with the battery cells ([0008]). In Xu, where the battery modules and cooling components are arranged along a front–rear direction of the vehicle, the higher-temperature region of the cooling passage corresponds to passage plates positioned closer to the rear of the vehicle as they are closer to the outlet (Fig. 5, port 39 from Xu). Accordingly, the passage plate positioned closer to the rear of the vehicle would have a greater passage volume than a passage plate positioned closer to the front of the vehicle. Further, Vakilimoghaddam teaches that the number and arrangement of battery cells 2 and module(s) 4 supported on the heat exchanger may vary from the configuration shown in Fig. 1 ([0036]). This teaching demonstrates that the arrangement and orientation of battery modules within a vehicle battery pack are matters of design choice available to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, when applying Vakilimoghaddam’s teaching to the system of Xu, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to arrange the passage plates such that the second passage plate is positioned closer to the rear of the vehicle than the first passage plate. Selecting such an arrangement to achieve temperature uniformity in a desired direction would have involved only a rearrangement of known components and the exercise of routine design choice, yielding predictable results and therefore would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. See also MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, as modified by Vakilimoghaddam, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murata et al. (US 20140038020 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Xu, as modified by Vakilimoghaddam, teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Xu further teaches a limitation wherein the cooling structure further comprises passage plates (air guide plates in page 23, lines 45-60) that partially constitute the cooling passage (page 23, line 56, the flow channel is provided with a hollow air guide plate), but fails to yet explicitly teach wherein the passage plates are made of a thermally conductive material, the passage plates include a first passage plate and a second passage plate positioned closer to the rear of the vehicle than the first passage plate. However, Vakilimoghaddam further teaches limitations wherein passage plates face the battery modules (Liquid cooled heat exchanger 10 face battery modules 4 in Fig. 1, [0035]), and the passage plates include a first passage plate and a second passage plate ([0009], [0045], plurality of fluid flow passages in a plate, 34A, 34B, 34C in Fig. 3). Vakilimoghaddam also teaches that the passage plates are made of a thermally conductive material ([0058], heat energy conduction through plates 12 and 18 of the liquid cooled heat exchanger 10). Vakilimoghaddam further teaches that this arrangement improves temperature uniformity across surfaces in contact with the battery cells ([0008]). In addition, as discussed in claim 1 above, Vakilimoghaddam teaches toward the arrangement direction of battery modules interconnected within a vehicle battery pack being an obvious design choice within the ambit of a person having ordinary skill in the art ([0036]).
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the passage plates of Xu, in view of Vakilimoghaddam, to make the passage plate of Xu of a thermally conductive material and position the passage plates including the first and second passage plates faced the battery modules to improve temperature uniformity across surfaces in contact with the battery cells as taught by Vakilimoghaddam ([0008]). Further, Vakilimoghaddam teaches that the number and arrangement of battery cells 2 and module(s) 4 supported on the heat exchanger may vary from the configuration shown in Fig. 1 ([0036]). This teaching demonstrates that the arrangement and orientation of battery modules within a vehicle battery pack are matters of design choice available to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, when applying Vakilimoghaddam’s teaching to the system of Xu, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to arrange the passage plates such that the second passage plate is positioned closer to the rear of the vehicle than the first passage plate. Selecting such an arrangement to achieve temperature uniformity in a desired direction would have involved only a rearrangement of known components and the exercise of routine design choice, yielding predictable results and therefore would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. See also MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Further regarding claim 3, modified Xu is silent about a limitation wherein the second passage plate has a contact area with the battery modules greater than a contact area of the first passage plate with the battery modules. However, Murata teaches a cooling path adjacent to a plurality of batteries (Fig.3, cooling path 20B), wherein the plurality of batteries includes a first battery and a second battery located downstream of the first battery in the cooling path. Murata further discloses that an area of the first battery that is in contact with the coolant is smaller than that of the second battery ([0030] and claim 2). Murata explains that this downstream configuration is used to suppress variations in the cooling efficiency and to adjust temperature variation between batteries located near the inlet and those near the discharge end ([0031]). Further, modified Xu, and Murata are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of cooling structure for a vehicle battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the passage plates of modified Xu, in view of Murata, such that the passage plate positioned closer to the rear of the vehicle and accordingly closer to the outlet (Fig. 5, port 39 from Xu) has a greater contact area with the battery modules than an upstream passage plate, in order to suppress temperature variation and improve cooling uniformity across the battery modules as taught by Murata ([0031]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, as modified by Vakilimoghaddam, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jaguemont et al. ("A comprehensive review of future thermal management systems for battery-electrified vehicles." Journal of Energy Storage 31 (2020): 101551) and Yu (CN 110021801 A, citations from enclosed machine translation)
Regarding claim 4, Xu, as modified by Vakilimoghaddam, teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Xu does not specifically teach limitations wherein (i) the heat exchanger is positioned behind the battery assembly in the front-rear direction, (ii) a secondary air inlet is provided between the battery assembly and the heat exchanger in the front-rear direction, and the secondary air inlet is configured to allow outside air to blow through the secondary air inlet during traveling of the vehicle. However, Jaguemont teaches limitation (i). Specifically, Fig. 6b and Fig. 6c of Jaguemont illustrate heater and evaporator cores, which are reasonably interpreted as heat exchangers, positioned upstream of the battery pack relative to the airflow direction. As shown in Fig. 2 of Xu, outside air enters from the front of the vehicle and flows toward the rear, thereby defining a front-to-rear airflow direction. When Fig. 6b and Fig.6c of Jaguemont are considered in the context of the vehicle airflow direction taught by Xu, the heater and evaporator cores (heat exchangers) are positioned behind the battery assembly in the front-rear direction of the vehicle. Thus, Jaguemont teaches or at least suggests a configuration in which a heat exchanger is positioned behind a battery assembly in the front-rear direction, as recited in limitation (i). Jaguemont further teaches that such a configuration maintains a controlled temperature, reduces temperature gradient, and prevents thermal runway (page 2, first paragraph of section 3. Traditional thermal management systems). Further, modified Xu and Jaguemont are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of cooling structure for a vehicle battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the heat exchanger of modified Xu behind the battery assembly as taught by Jaguemont in order to cool down the battery system (page 2, first paragraph of section 3. Traditional thermal management systems).
Further regarding claim 4, Xu, as modified by Vakilimoghaddam and Jaguemont, is silent as to the second limitation (ii) wherein a secondary air inlet is provided between the battery assembly and the heat exchanger in the front-rear direction, and the secondary air inlet is configured to allow outside air to blow through the secondary air inlet during traveling of the vehicle. However, Yu teaches this limitation by disclosing a secondary air inlet configured to allow outside air to blow through the secondary air inlet during traveling of the vehicle in order to improve the cooling function (second inlet 21, Fig. 1, paragraph 2 of Specific implementation methods). Further, modified Xu, and Yu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of cooling structure for a vehicle battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling structure of modified Xu by incorporating the second inlet in order to improve the cooling function and increase cooling efficiency as taught by Yu (abstract, paragraph 2 of Specific implementation methods). Although Yu positions the second inlet adjacent to a second fan chamber rather than between the battery assembly and the heat exchanger in the front-rear direction, as claimed, such a difference represents a mere rearrangement of parts without any new or unexpected results. Such rearrangement would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04 VI C).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, as modified by Vakilimoghaddam, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Ohta et al. (US 20220379682 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Xu, as modified by Vakilimoghaddam, teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Xu does not explicitly teach a limitation wherein the cooling structure further comprises a fan, wherein the fan is configured to be rotationally driven to make outside air blow through the air inlet. However, Ohta teaches the limitation wherein a cooling structure further comprises a fan, wherein the fan is configured to be rotationally driven to make outside air blow through an air inlet ([0006]) in order to cool a power storage device mounted on a vehicle ([0002]). Further, modified Xu, and Ohta are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of cooling structure for a vehicle battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling structure of modified Xu by incorporating the fan as taught by Ohta in order to improve the cooling functionality of a power storage mounted on a vehicle, as taught by Ohta (claim 1, [0002]).
Regarding claim 6, Xu, as modified by Vakilimoghaddam, teaches all claim limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Modified Xu does not explicitly teach a limitation wherein the cooling structure of claim 2 further comprises a fan, wherein the fan is configured to be rotationally driven to make outside air blow through the air inlet. However, Ohta teaches the limitation wherein a cooling structure further comprises a fan, wherein the fan is configured to be rotationally driven to make outside air blow through an air inlet ([0006]) in order to cool a power storage device mounted on a vehicle ([0002]). Further, modified Xu, and Ohta are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of cooling structure for a vehicle battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling structure of modified Xu by incorporating the fan as taught by Ohta in order to improve the cooling functionality of a power storage mounted on a vehicle, as taught by Ohta (claim 1, [0002]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, as modified by Vakilimoghaddam and Murata, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ohta et al. (US 20220379682 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Xu, as modified by Vakilimoghaddam and Murata, teaches all claim limitations of claim 3 as stated above. Modified Xu does not explicitly teach a limitation wherein the cooling structure of claim 3 further comprises a fan, wherein the fan is configured to be rotationally driven to make outside air blow through the air inlet. However, Ohta teaches the limitation wherein the cooling structure further comprises a fan, wherein the fan is configured to be rotationally driven to make outside air blow through an air inlet ([0006]) in order to cool a power storage device mounted on a vehicle ([0002]). Further, modified Xu, and Ohta are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of cooling structure for a vehicle battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling structure of modified Xu by incorporating the fan as taught by Ohta in order to improve the cooling functionality of a power storage mounted on a vehicle, as taught by Ohta (claim 1, [0002]).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, as modified by Vakilimoghaddam, Jaguemont and Yu, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Ohta et al. (US 20220379682 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Xu, as modified by Vakilimoghaddam, Jaguemont and Yu, teaches all claim limitations of claim 4 as stated above. Modified Xu does not explicitly teach a limitation wherein the cooling structure of claim 4 further comprises a fan, wherein the fan is configured to be rotationally driven to make outside air blow through the air inlet. However, Ohta teaches the limitation wherein a cooling structure further comprises a fan, wherein the fan is configured to be rotationally driven to make outside air blow through an air inlet ([0006]) in order to cool a power storage device mounted on a vehicle ([0002]). Further, modified Xu, and Ohta are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of cooling structure for a vehicle battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling structure of modified Xu by incorporating the fan as taught by Ohta in order to improve the cooling functionality of a power storage mounted on a vehicle, as taught by Ohta (claim 1, [0002]).
Regarding claim 9, Xu, as modified by Vakilimoghaddam, Jaguemont and Yu, teaches all claim limitations of claim 4 as stated above. Modified Xu does not explicitly teach a limitation wherein the cooling structure of claim 4 further comprises a fan, wherein the fan is configured to be rotationally driven to make outside air blow through the air inlet and through the secondary air inlet. However, Ohta teaches the limitation wherein a cooling structure further comprises a fan (fan 60 in Fig. 2), wherein the fan is configured to be rotationally driven to make outside air blow through an air inlet ([0006], inlet 90 in Fig. 2) and through a plurality of opening portions (elements 51 and 81 in Fig. 2, [0036], [0040], [0065]) in order to cool a power storage device mounted on a vehicle ([0002]). Further, modified Xu, and Ohta are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of cooling structure for a vehicle battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling structure of modified Xu (already having multiple air inlets including a secondary air inlet, in regards to claim 4 above) by incorporating the fan as taught by Ohta such that the fan is rotationally driven to force outside air to flow through the multiple air inlets, (i.e., like openings 51 and 81 of inlet 90 of Ohta), thereby improving the cooling performance of a power storage mounted on a vehicle, as taught by Ohta (claim 1, [0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lili Rassouli whose telephone number is (571)272-9760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM-4:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/LILI RASSOULI/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728