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 statements (IDS)’s submitted on 07/10/2023 and 04/02/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the arrows/connection lines between the numbers and parts are faded and not clearly shown in Figures 1A-5B; therefore, it is wholly unclear which components
correspond to each part number and the claimed features cannot be clearly identified from the drawings. 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.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-2 specify that the first and second protrusion “protrudes outwardly.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation and consistent with the specification ([0008], [0010]) and Claims 4 and 15, the claim language is interpreted to mean that the first/second protrusion protrudes outwardly from the first/second terminal and first/second main body thereof. However, the claim language appears to be broader than the embodiment disclosed in the drawings (see MPEP 2111.01(II)). Claims 1-2 do not require the protrusion to protrude outwardly away from the electrode assembly as shown in Figures 1A-3A; and encompasses a case in which the protrusion protrudes in a direction away from the electrode assembly and in a direction towards the electrode assembly. If only one embodiment is intended, examiner recommends moving the limitations from Claim 16 to Claim 1 and/or amending Claim 1 to clarify a direction of the protrusion with respect to the electrode assembly.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
832
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 5 (Zhang et al.))]Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210074963 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang et al. teaches a secondary battery (title) comprising:
an electrode assembly comprising a first electrode tab 210 and a second electrode tab 220 exposed at opposite sides of the electrode assembly ([0045], Fig. 5);
a case accommodating the electrode assembly and having a side-opening at opposite sides thereof ([0043]-[0044],[0046]);
a first cap plate 10 (located at a top surface) sealing a one side-opening in the case ([0046]);
a first terminal 21 electrically connected to the first electrode tab 210 and exposed to the outside of the first cap plate ([0048]), the first terminal having a first protrusion 212 that protrudes outwardly from the base portion 211 ([0050], Fig. 5);
a second cap plate 10 (located at a bottom surface) sealing the other side-opening in the case; and
a second terminal 41 electrically connected to the second electrode tab 220 and exposed to the outside of the second cap plate, the second terminal having a second protrusion 412 that protrudes outwardly from the base portion 411 ([0046], [0073], see annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 12, Zhang et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Zhang et al. teaches a first (upper) current collector 30 (current collecting wiring board) electrically connecting the first electrode tab 210 and the first terminal 21; and a second (lower) current collector 30 electrically connecting the second electrode tab 220 and the second terminal 41 ([0054]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 4, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210074963 A1) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6509115 B2).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Zhang et al. teaches that the first terminal 21 comprises:
a first outer terminal plate over the first (upper) cap plate 10 and having a plate-shaped first main body 211 and the first protrusion 212 protruding outwardly from the first main body (see Fig. 5, [0050]).
Zhang et al. does not teach a first inner terminal plate under the first cap plate and a first terminal pillar rivet-coupled to the first inner terminal plate from under the first cap plate and extending through the first cap plate and coupled to the first outer terminal plate from over the first cap plate by [AltContent: textbox (Fig. 2 (Kim et al.))]
PNG
media_image2.png
603
555
media_image2.png
Greyscale
rivet-coupling and/or welding.
Kim et al. teaches an inner terminal plate 55 under a cap plate 52; and a terminal pillar 54c rivet-coupled to the inner terminal plate 55 from under the cap plate 52 and extending through the cap plate and coupled to the outer terminal plate 54a from over the cap plate by rivet-coupling; the configuration provides sufficient sealing and insulation (para. 6-7 of “Description,” Fig. 2).
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 first terminal of Zhang et al. to include a first inner terminal plate under the first cap plate and a first terminal pillar rivet-coupled to the first inner terminal plate from under the first cap plate and extending through the first cap plate and coupled to the first outer terminal plate from over the first cap plate by rivet-coupling as taught by Kim et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide sufficient sealing and insulation.
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang et al. is modified by Kim et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 2 above. Zhang et al. teaches that the second terminal 41 comprises a second outer terminal plate over the second (lower) cap plate 10 and having a plate-shaped second main body 411 and the second protrusion 412 protruding outwardly from the second main body (see Fig. 5, [0050]).
Zhang et al. does not teach a second inner terminal plate under the second cap plate and a second terminal pillar rivet-coupled to the second inner terminal plate from under the second cap plate and extending through the second cap plate and coupled to the second outer terminal plate from over the second cap plate by rivet-coupling and/or welding.
As applied to Claim 2, the first terminal of Zhang et al. is modified by Kim et al. to include a first inner terminal plate under the first cap plate and a first terminal pillar rivet-coupled to the first inner terminal plate from under the first cap plate and extending through the first cap plate and coupled to the first outer terminal plate from over the first cap plate by rivet-coupling. As Zhang et al. teaches structural uniformity between the first and second cap assemblies and first and second terminals ([0073]), it would be obvious to perform the proposed modification to both the first terminal and second terminal of Zhang et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the second terminal of Zhang et al. to include a (second) inner terminal plate under the (second) cap plate and a (second) terminal pillar rivet-coupled to the (second) inner terminal plate from under the (second) cap plate and extending through the (second) cap plate and coupled to the (second) outer terminal plate from over the (second) cap plate by rivet-coupling as taught by Kim et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide sufficient sealing and insulation as described above.
Regarding Claim 8, Zhang et al. is modified by Kim et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 4 above. Zhang et al. teaches wherein the first outer terminal plate 21 and the second outer terminal plate 41, the first main body 211 and the second main body 411 extend beyond both sides in a first direction from the first protrusion 212 and the second protrusion 412, respectively (see annotated Fig. 5, [0050]).
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 6 (Zhang et al.))]
PNG
media_image3.png
894
364
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Zhang et al. is modified by Kim et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 4 above. Zhang et al. teaches wherein the first protrusion 212 and the second protrusion 412 extend in a first direction so that the lengths thereof in the first direction are smaller than those of the first outer terminal plate 21 and the second outer terminal plate 41, and wherein the first direction is a longitudinal direction of the first (upper) cap plate 10 and the second (lower) cap plate 10 (Fig. 5, [0050]).
Regarding Claim 10, Zhang et al. is modified by Kim et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 9 above. Zhang et al. teaches wherein the first protrusion 212 and the second protrusion 412 are substantially center of the first outer terminal plate 21 and the second outer terminal plate 41 in a second direction, respectively, and wherein the second direction is a widthwise direction of the first (upper) cap plate and the second (lower) cap plate (see Fig. 5-6 above). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to position the first and second protrusion in a center of the first and second outer terminal plate, respectively, in a width direction to provide uniform sealing and adhesion on both sides. "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."
Regarding Claim 11, Zhang et al. is modified by Kim et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 4 above. Zhang et al. teaches wherein in the first (upper) outer terminal plate 21 and the second (lower) outer terminal plate 41, the first main body 211 and the second main body 411 extend beyond both sides in a second direction from the first protrusion 212 and the second protrusion 412 (see annotated Fig. 5, [0050]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210074963 A1) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6509115 B2), and further in view of Imabori (U.S. Pat. No. 20210098768 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang et al. is modified by Kim et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 2 above. Zhang et al. teaches that the positive (first or second) outer terminal plate is made of a metal such as aluminum ([0049],[0052]).
Zhang et al. does not specify that the first outer terminal plate is made of the same metal as the second terminal; and is made of a different metal than the first inner terminal plate.
Imabori teaches that a first (negative) outer terminal plate 54 can be made of aluminum ([0039]), while the second (positive) terminal can also be made of aluminum ([0037]), and a first (negative) inner terminal plate 52 can be a made of a different material such as copper ([0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the secondary battery of Zhang et al. to include a first outer terminal plate made of the same metal as the second terminal and is made of a different metal than the first inner terminal plate as taught by Imabori. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to improve the joining force between the internal terminal and external terminal ([0020]) and to simplify the manufacturing process. Further, "applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210074963 A1) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6509115 B2) as further evidenced by Imabori (U.S. Pat. No. 20210098768 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Zhang et al. is modified by Kim et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 4 above. Zhang et al. teaches that the positive (first or second) outer terminal plate is made of a metal such as aluminum ([0049],[0052]). As applied to Claim 4, Zhang et al. is modified by Kim et al. to include a second inner terminal plate and a second terminal pillar.
Zhang et al. does not teach that the second inner terminal plate, the second outer terminal plate, and the second terminal pillar are made of the same metal.
In addition to the teachings above, Kim et al. teaches that the terminal member 54 can be made of aluminum, copper or brass in which the copper or brass can be plated (para. 6 of “Description,” para. 9 of “Background”). As the inner terminal plate is a component of the terminal member, it is within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art to form the second inner terminal plate of the same metal as both the second outer terminal plate and terminal pillar (in which collectively form the terminal member) such as aluminum. As further evidence of said configuration, Imabori teaches a positive (second) inner terminal plate 42, a positive (second) outer terminal plate 44, and a positive (second) terminal pillar that are made of the same metal ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the secondary battery of Zhang et al. in which the second inner terminal plate, the second outer terminal plate, and the second terminal pillar are made of the same metal such as aluminum as taught by Kim et al. in evidence of Imabori. Further, "the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)" (MPEP 2144.07); and "applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)." The selection of any metal deemed suitable for use as a terminal plate and terminal pillar would be obvious. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select the same metal to simplify the manufacturing process.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210074963 A1) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6509115 B2) and Imabori (U.S. Pat. No. 20210098768 A1), and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190214625 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Zhang et al. is modified by Kim et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 4 above. Zhang et al. teaches a first direction that is a longitudinal direction of the first (upper) cap plate and the second (lower) cap plate (see annotated Fig. 5).
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 3A (Lee et al.))]
PNG
media_image4.png
231
415
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Zhang et al. does not teach wherein the first protrusion is at the center of the first outer terminal plate in a first direction, and wherein the second protrusion is at the center of the second outer terminal plate in the first direction.
Lee et al. teaches an electrode terminal 22 that is an outer terminal plate comprising a main body 34 and protrusion 22c in which protrudes outwardly from the main body ([0044]). The protrusion is formed at a center of the cap plate in a longitudinal first direction to accommodate the stepped portion 32 (in which can be integrally formed with the protrusion 22c, [0008]) and to allow connection with the fixing protrusion parts 33 (Fig. 3A, [0044]). Accordingly, the number of components can be reduced providing a simplified manufacturing process ([0057]), while providing a method to fix the plate terminal to the cap plate that prevents shifting ([0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the first and second terminal of Zhang et al. wherein the first protrusion is at the center of the first outer terminal plate in a first direction, and the second protrusion is at the center of the second outer terminal plate in the first direction as taught by Lee et al.; as Zhang et al. teaches structural uniformity between the first and second terminals ([0073]), it would be obvious to perform the proposed modification to both the first terminal and second terminal of Zhang et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a simplified manufacturing process ([0057]) in which the plate terminal can be securely fixed to the cap plate without shifting ([0010]).
Regarding Claim 7, Zhang et al. is modified by Kim et al. and Lee et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 6 above. Zhang et al. teaches a second direction being a widthwise direction of the first cap plate and the second cap plate and perpendicular to the first direction (see annotated Fig. 5). Zhang et al. teaches wherein the first protrusion 212 has a smaller length in the first direction than the first outer terminal plate 21, and wherein the second protrusion 412 has a smaller length in the first direction than the second outer terminal plate 41 ([0050], Fig. 5).
Zhang et al. does not teach wherein the first protrusion has a length in a second direction equal to the first outer terminal plate; and wherein the second protrusion has length in a second direction equal to the second outer terminal plate.
However, a change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) (MPEP 2144.04(IV)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second terminal of Zhang et al. wherein the protrusion has a length in a second direction (widthwise) equal to the corresponding outer terminal plate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to reduce the required material and costs thereof by minimizing the size of the outer terminal plate in a second (width) direction.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210074963 A1) in view of Lev et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20130209847 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Zhang et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Zhang et al. does not teach wherein the first and second ones of the secondary batteries are connected to each other in series by welding in a state in which outer surfaces of the first terminal of the first one of the secondary batteries and the second terminal of the second one of the secondary batteries are in contact with each other.
Lev et al. teaches wherein first and second ones of secondary batteries are connected to each other in series by welding in a state in which outer surfaces of the first terminal 104 of the first one of the secondary batteries and the second terminal 106 of the second one of the secondary batteries are in contact with each other ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the secondary battery of Zhang et al. wherein first and second ones of the secondary batteries are connected to each other in series by welding in a state in which outer surfaces of the first terminal of the first one of the secondary batteries and the second terminal of the second one of the secondary batteries are in contact with each other as taught by Lev et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to minimize the manufacturing complexity while maximizing volumetric and mass energy density ([0054]). Further, "applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."
Regarding Claim 14, Zhang et al. is modified by Lev et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 13 above. Zhang et al. teaches wherein the first terminal of the first one of the secondary batteries comprises a first outer terminal plate 21 exposed to the outside of the first (upper) cap plate 10, and wherein the second terminal of the second one of the secondary batteries comprises a second outer terminal plate 41 exposed to outside of the second (lower) cap plate 10 (see Fig. 5, [0073]).
Regarding Claim 15, Zhang et al. is modified by Lev et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 14 above. Zhang et al. teaches wherein the first outer terminal plate 21 comprises a flat plate-shaped first main body 211 and the first protrusion 212 protruding outwardly from the first main body, and wherein the second outer terminal plate 41 comprises a flat plate-shaped second main body 411 and the second protrusion 412 protruding outwardly from the second main body (see Fig. 5, [0050]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210074963 A1) in view of Lev et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20130209847 A1), and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190214625 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Zhang et al. is modified by Lev et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 15 above. Zhang et al. teaches a first protrusion and second protrusion in which protrude outwardly in a direction toward the electrode assembly; as applied to Claim 13, the secondary battery of Zhang et al. is modified by Lev et al. wherein first and second ones of the secondary batteries are connected to each other in series by welding in a state in which outer surfaces of the first terminal of the first one of the secondary batteries and the second terminal of the second one of the secondary batteries are in contact with each other. The language of Claim 16 requires contact between the first and second protrusion to allow coupling and welding between subsequent batteries.
Zhang et al. does not teach that the first and second protrusion protrudes outwardly in a direction away from the electrode assembly in which would allow contact by coupling and welding to subsequent batteries.
Lee et al. teaches an electrode terminal 21 comprising a main body 34 and protrusion 22c in which protrudes outwardly in a direction away from the electrode assembly ([0043]). The protrusion can be integrally formed with the stepped portion 32 in which the stepped portion and protrusion 22c collectively function as the plate terminal 22 ([0056], Fig. 3A). Accordingly, the number of components can be reduced providing a simplified manufacturing process ([0057]), while providing a method to fix the plate terminal to the cap plate and prevents shifting ([0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the first and second terminals of Zhang et al. to include a first and second protrusion, respectively, in which protrude outwardly in a direction away from the electrode assembly as taught by Lee et al. (as Zhang et al. teaches structural uniformity between the first and second cap assemblies and first and second terminals ([0073]), it would be obvious to perform the proposed modification to both the first terminal and second terminal of Zhang et al.). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a simplified manufacturing process (Lee et al., [0057]) in which the plate terminal can be securely fixed to the cap plate without shifting (Lee et al., [0010]). The described modification would allow the first protrusion and the second protrusion to be exposed to outer surfaces to be coupled to each other by welding in a state in which the second protrusion of the second outer terminal plate of the second one of the secondary batteries is in contact with the first protrusion of the first outer terminal plate of the first one of the secondary batteries in view of the previous modification by Lev et al. as described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights