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 .
Claim Interpretation
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the
plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,”
but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a control module…configured to manage the battery module… ” in claim 3. The corresponding structure is found in Fig. 2 and pages 16-17. The control module is interpreted as an electronic battery control device.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claim 8 is 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 8 recites the limitation “…the side of the fire extinguishing tank”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “… a side of the fire extinguishing tank”.
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(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung et al. (US 20140186668 A1).
With regards to claim 1, in Fig. 2, Jung teaches a battery pack (10) comprising: a battery module having one or more battery cells (11) (¶ 0023); a fire extinguishing tank (200) holding a fire extinguishing liquid (201). As shown in Fig. 2 below, the tank is disposed on a side of the battery pack that may be considered the top of the module depending on the orientation of Fig. 2. Jung teaches that the tank includes an outlet (210) connected to the inside of the pack (¶ 0012) which reads on the fire extinguishing tank having at least one through hole formed therein. Jung also teaches a cover (outlet valve, 240) that opens and closes the outlet (through hole) (¶ 0047). Jung teaches that the outlet valve may automatically opened if pressure in the tank is over a predetermined level (¶ 0049). This reads on a cover installed in the at least one through hole of the fire extinguishing tank and configured to open or close the at least one through hole according to a change in internal pressure of the fire extinguishing tank. Fig. 2 is shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
755
877
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 2, Jung teaches that the fire extinguishing tank includes an explosive that is exploded when fire occurrence is detected (¶ 0012). Jung teaches that this explosion moves a piston within the tank which in turn injects the fire extinguishing liquid into the battery pack (¶ 0012). This reads on the fire extinguishing tank comprising a rupture member configured to be ruptured under a predetermined condition to allow the outflow of the fire extinguishing liquid.
With regards to claim 4, as discussed earlier, Jung explains that the valve plays a role of opening and closing the outlet (¶ 0047). Jung teaches that the outlet valve is ordinarily closed, however, if a fire occurs, there is an increase in pressure within the tank that causes the valve to automatically open to form a path along which the fluid may be injected into the battery (¶ 0049). As this valve opens and closes based on an increase in pressure within the tank to allow flow, it reads on the cover (outlet valve) opening/closing in a direction compensating for a pressure change inside the fire extinguishing tank.
With regards to claim 5, as discussed earlier, Jung teaches that the cover (outlet valve) is configured to be opened when the pressure inside the fire extinguishing tank increases ( ¶ 0049).
With regards to claim 6, Jung teaches that if a fire occurs, the explosive explodes and exerts a force on the piston to push the fluid out of the tank through the outlet (¶ 0049). This pressure causes the outlet valve to open towards the battery pack to allow for flow to the battery pack (¶ 0049). This reads on the cover being configured to be openable in an outward direction.
With regards to claim 8, in Fig. 2 above, Jung shows that the cover is located on a side of the fire extinguisher. The side of the tank is interpreted as any side of the tank.
With regards to claim 13, as discussed earlier, Jung teaches that the outlet valve (cover) opens and closes depending on a change in pressure (¶ 0049). Jung also teaches that the valve may be a check valve that allows the fluid to move only in a direction from the tank to the battery pack (¶ 0050). Thus, once the pressure within the tank and the external air reach a certain level where there may be backflow, the valve closes to ensure flow only in a direction from the tank to. This reads on the valve (cover) being configured to switch from an open state to a closed state when the pressure difference between the pressure in the fire extinguishing tank and the external air pressure comes within a certain level.
With regards to claim 14, Jung teaches the battery pack of claim 1 and discusses the use of batteries in power storage systems (¶ 0006). This reads on an energy storage system comprising a battery pack according to 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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (US 20140186668 A1).
With regards to claim 3, as discussed in the 112f section above, the control module is interpreted as an electronic battery control device. Jung teaches that the battery pack comprises a control unit that may be implemented in a battery management system to manage the battery module (¶ 0038). This reads on a control module connected to the battery module and configured to manage the battery module. Jung does not specifically teach that the fire extinguishing tank is mounted between the battery module and the control module.
However, as Jung teaches the tank, battery module and control module of claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to place the tank between the battery module and the control module as the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (US 20140186668 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Lindstrom et al. (US 20080271903 A1).
With regards to claim 7, Jung teaches an inner tank ( inner space) holding the fire extinguishing liquid (¶ 0011). As shown in Fig. 2 below Jung teaches that the cover is mounted outside of the inner tank. However, Jung does not specifically teach an outer tank at least partially surrounding an outer side of the inner tank and wherein the cover is mounted on the
PNG
media_image2.png
755
877
media_image2.png
Greyscale
outer tank.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lindstrom teaches a fire protection system comprising an outer tank (14, casing) and an extinguishing medium container (1, inner tank) containing extinguishing medium (fire extinguishing liquid) (¶ 0073 and Fig. 1). Lindstrom teaches that the outer tank (casing) forms an outer cover for the fire protection system and may minimize unwanted external influences (¶ 0073). Fig. 1 is shown below.
PNG
media_image3.png
895
863
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the fire extinguishing tank taught by Jung to form an outer cover or casing to surround the inner tank as taught by Lindstrom. This would predictably minimize any external influences in the tank. The resulting tank will have the cover mounted on the outer tank as it is also located outside the inner tank.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (US 20140186668 A1) as applied to claim 1 above an in further view of Philips et al. (US 20160256719 A1).
With regards to claim 9, the cover is interpreted as different from the cover discussed in claim 5. Jung teaches a cover (outlet valve, 240) installed at the through hole (210) that closes the hole under normal conditions and opens the outlet when the pressure in the tank increases (¶ 0049). Jung does not teach the cover being configured to be opened when the pressure inside the fire extinguishing tank decreases.
However, it is well known that when fluid is displaced from a closed system, a vacuum is created in the closed system that leads to a decrease in pressure and affects flow behavior. In a similar field of endeavor, Philips teaches a fire suppression system that comprises a housing that includes inlet and outlet ports and a housing interior having a fluid passage (¶ 0006). Phillips teaches that the pressure decrease within the tank is due to the flow of the fluid from the tank into an enclosure (¶ 0051). To mitigate this issue, Phillips teaches a flow control assembly that mechanically regulates the flow of fire suppressing fluid via a poppet valve coupled to a pressure regulating spring (¶ 0052). Philips teaches that the valve may be in contact with fire suppressing fluid at a pressure matching the pressure within the fire suppressing fluid source (tank) when the flow activation assembly has fluidly connected the source (tank) to the fluid discharge assembly (¶ 0052). Phillips discloses that the pressure of the fluid may exert a force on the valve urging it towards a closed position. Phillips also teaches that the pressure regulating spring may be disposed so as to exert a force on the poppet valve urging the poppet valve toward a more open position (¶ 0052). So, if the pressure within the source (tank) is constant, these opposing forces may be in equilibrium, however, as the pressure within the source (tank) decreases, the closing force exerted on the poppet valve may decrease, thereby allowing the pressure regulating spring to urge the poppet valve to a more open position and thus maintain the flow rate of fire suppressing fluid (¶ 0052). The poppet valve reads on a cover configured to be opened when the pressure inside of the fire extinguishing tank decreases.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify the fire extinguishing tank taught by Jung to include a poppet valve as taught by Phillips as it would be reasonable to expect the same flow issue when a vacuum is created in the tank. Through the modification, the resulting tank includes a poppet valve which would predictably ensure effective flow behavior.
With regards to claim 10, as discussed by Phillips, the poppet valve is urged toward a closed position when the pressure the fluid exerts a force on it (¶ 0052). When the pressure in the tank decreases, the pressure drop pulls on the pressure regulating spring and urges the valve to be opened (¶ 0052). This reads on the valve or cover being openable in an inward direction.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (US 20140186668 A1) in view of Philips et al. (US 20160256719 A1) as applied to claims 9-10 above and in further view of Lindstrom et al. (US 20080271903 A1).
With regards to claim 11, modified Jung teaches the battery pack according to claim 10. Jung teaches that the fire extinguishing tank comprises an inner tank holding the fire extinguishing liquid in an inner space and an outer tank at least partially surrounding an outer side of the inner tank (¶ 0011 and Fig. 2). However, modified Jung does not specifically teach that the cover is mounted on the inner tank.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lindstrom teaches a fire protection system comprising an extinguishing medium container (1, inner tank) containing extinguishing medium (fire extinguishing liquid) (¶ 0073). Lindstrom also teaches a pressure relief valve (33) for air supply that replaces the extinguishing medium during operation so that a vacuum is not created in the extinguishing medium container during emptying. As discussed earlier, Philips also mitigates the issue related to the vacuum created during emptying using the poppet valve. As shown in Fig. 1 below, Lindstrom teaches that the pressure relief valve is mounted on the inner tank. Fig. 1 is shown below.
PNG
media_image4.png
895
863
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The inner tank holds the fluid and is where the vacuum is created during emptying thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to mount the poppet valve (pressure relief valve/cover) taught by modified Jung on the inner tank as taught by Lindstrom as there are no unexpected results.
With regards to claim 12, modified Jung teaches the battery pack according to claim 9. Jung teaches that the fire extinguishing tank comprises an inner tank holding the fire extinguishing liquid in an inner space and an outer tank at least partially surrounding an outer side of the inner tank (¶ 0011 and Fig. 2). However, modified Jung does not specifically teach that the cover is located on an upper side of the fire extinguishing tank.
As discussed earlier, Philips teaches a poppet valve that resolves the flow issue associated with emptying the tank (closed system). In a similar field of endeavor, Lindstrom teaches a similar solution via a pressure relief valve (33) for air supply that replaces the extinguishing medium during operation so that a vacuum is not created in the extinguishing medium container during emptying. During emptying, the vacuum will form in the upper side of the holding tank. As shown in Fig. 1 above, Lindstrom shows that the pressure relief valve is located on the upper side of the tank.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed mount the poppet valve taught by modified Jung on an upper side of the tank. As the vacuum will be formed at the upper side of the tank, it would be reasonable to mount the pressure relief valve there to effectively replace the vacuum with air when pressure decreases in the tank.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (US 20140186668 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Philips et al. (US 20160256719 A1) and Lindstrom et al. (US 20080271903 A1).
With regards to claim 15, a first cover (outlet valve, 240) that closes the hole under normal conditions and opens the outlet when the pressure in the tank increases (¶ 0049). In Fig. 2, the first cover is located on an exterior surface of the fire extinguishing tank. However, Jung does not teach a second cover on an interior surface of the tank.
It is well known that when fluid is displaced from a closed system, a vacuum is created in the closed system that leads to a decrease in pressure and affects flow behavior. In a similar field of endeavor, Philips teaches a fire suppression system that comprises a housing that includes inlet and outlet ports and a housing interior having a fluid passage (¶ 0006). Phillips teaches that the pressure decrease within the tank is due to the flow of the fluid from the tank into an enclosure (¶ 0051). To mitigate this issue, Phillips teaches a flow control assembly that mechanically regulates the flow of fire suppressing fluid via a poppet valve coupled to a pressure regulating spring (¶ 0052). Philips teaches that the valve may be in contact with fire suppressing fluid at a pressure matching the pressure within the fire suppressing fluid source (tank) when the flow activation assembly has fluidly connected the source (tank) to the fluid discharge assembly (¶ 0052). Phillips discloses that the pressure of the fluid may exert a force on the valve urging it towards a closed position. Phillips also teaches that the pressure regulating spring may be disposed so as to exert a force on the poppet valve urging the poppet valve toward a more open position (¶ 0052). So, if the pressure within the source (tank) is constant, these opposing forces may be in equilibrium, however, as the pressure within the source (tank) decreases, the closing force exerted on the poppet valve may decrease, thereby allowing the pressure regulating spring to urge the poppet valve to a more open position and thus maintain the flow rate of fire suppressing fluid (¶ 0052). The poppet valve reads on a cover configured to be opened when the pressure inside of the fire extinguishing tank decreases.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify the fire extinguishing tank taught by Jung to include a poppet valve as taught by Phillips as it would be reasonable to expect the same flow issue when a vacuum is created in the tank.
Modified Jung teaches a first (outlet valve) and second cover (poppet valve). Jung teaches that the fire extinguishing tank comprises an inner tank holding the fire extinguishing liquid in an inner space and an outer tank at least partially surrounding an outer side of the inner tank (¶ 0011 and Fig. 2). However, modified Jung does not specifically teach that the second cover is mounted on an interior surface of the tank.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lindstrom teaches a fire protection system comprising an outer tank (14, outer casing) and an extinguishing medium container (1, inner tank) containing extinguishing medium (fire extinguishing liquid) (¶ 0073). Similar to the poppet valve (second cover) taught by modified Jung, Lindstrom teaches a pressure relief valve (33) for air supply that replaces the extinguishing medium during operation so that a vacuum is not created in the extinguishing medium container during emptying. As shown in Fig. 1 below, Lindstrom shows that the pressure relief valve is located on the upper side of the inner tank. Fig. 1 is shown below.
PNG
media_image4.png
895
863
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed mount the poppet valve taught by modified Jung on an upper side of the interior of tank as taught by Lindstrom. As the vacuum will be formed at the upper side of the tank, it would be reasonable to mount the pressure relief valve there to effectively replace the vacuum with air during emptying.
Through the modification, the tank taught by modified Jung includes a first cover on a side of the tank and a first cover located on the upper part of the inner tank. As these covers are in this manner, a first and second through hole is formed. Thus, the battery pack taught by modified Jung comprises at least one through hole that includes a first and second through hole wherein the cover comprises a first cover mounted on an exterior surface of the tank and a second cover mounted on an interior surface of the tank.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (US 20140186668 A1) in view of Philips et al. (US 20160256719 A1) and Lindstrom et al. (US 20080271903 A1) as applied to claim 15 above and in further view of Ok et al. (US 20230223621 A1).
With regards to claim 16, modified Jung does not teach that each of the first and second covers is maintained in a closed position by an elastic member.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ok teaches a battery module including a plurality of batteries, a module housing that accommodates the cells and an adjustment cover configured to cover a part of an opening in the housing to fill fire extinguisher agent into the housing (¶ 0011). Ok teaches that the adjustment cover may include a sealing element configured to seal the top of the cover (¶ 0016). Ok discloses that the sealing element may include a synthetic fiber configured to absorb a part of the fire extinguishing agent and expand volume to close at least a part of the opening when the synthetic fiber contacts the fire extinguishing agent (¶ 0019). Ok also teaches that the synthetic fiber may be elastically deformed (¶ 0097). This reads on an elastic member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the first and second covers taught by modified Jung to include an elastic sealing element as taught by Ok. This would predictably ensure proper closure of the tank. Through the modification, the resulting fire extinguishing tank of the battery pack includes an elastic sealing element with the first and second covers to ensure that the covers are maintained in a closed position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNSUYADOR YUSIF whose telephone number is (571)272-4531. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 5 pm (M-R).
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, Galen H Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/HUNSUYADOR MUGEESATU YUSIF/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights