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 Objections
Claim 10 is being objected to because the claim has improper conditional formatting, see MPEP 2111.04. To improve clarity of the claim, first state the condition that must be met and then state the result that occurs. For the purposes of examination, the limitation of how the valve changes the flow in response to a leak is being interpreted as; if there is a leak in either the radiator flow path or the bypass flow path, then the valve changes to only allow flow through the path that does not have the leak.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) 1 and 4 recite(s) a controller comparing received differential pressures with a predetermined value and determining if there is a leakage in the coolant flow path based off of that data.
The limitation of obtaining pressure value differences and determining if there is a leakage in the coolant path, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a controller configured to” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a controller configured to” language, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually calculating the difference between the sensor values and predetermined values and finding a minimum over a period of time. Similarly, the limitation of determining if there is a leak, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “a controller configured to” language, “determining a leakage” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually combining the data found via integration and thinking that the received data is different from what the predetermined data says it should be and therefore realize there is a leak. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, in particular, the claim only recites one additional element, using a controller to perform both the comparison and determination steps. The controller in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic controller performing a generic computer function of comparing information based on a predetermined value) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a controller to perform both the comparison and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements present in the claim include a coolant flow path, pump and pressure sensor that are recited at a high level of generality and amount to what is well-known, understood and conventional. The claims are not patent eligible. Claims 3 and 5-13 are rejected due to being dependent upon one of rejected claim 1 or 4.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a controller comparing received differential pressures with a predetermined value and determining if there is a leakage in the coolant flow path based off of that data. In addition, the controller can change the flow rate and repeat those steps to confirm there is a leak. Further steps include calculating where in the flow path there is a leakage.
The limitation of obtaining pressure value differences and determining if there is a leakage in the coolant path, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a controller configured to” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a controller configured to” language, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually calculating the difference between the sensor values and predetermined values and finding a minimum over a period of time. It should be noted that this same process is done both before and after the changing of the flow rate, further, while changing the pump speed, and therefore the flow rate, is a valid function under 35 U.S.C. 101, because there is a second determination afterwards with no post solution activity being exemplified, the overall claim is still rejected. Similar to calculating pressure differences, the limitation of determining if there is a leak, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “a controller configured to” language, “determining a leakage” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually combining the data found and thinking that the received data is different from what the predetermined data says it should be and therefore realize there is a leak. Further, but for the “a controller configured to” language, “estimate a leakage location” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually calculating the location using an equation, such as the position equation used in ¶0051 in Lee (US 20220034746 A1). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, in particular, the claim only recites one additional element, using a controller to perform the comparison, determination, and position steps. The controller in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic controller performing a generic computer function of comparing information based on a predetermined value and plugging the values into a known equation) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a controller to perform the comparison, determining, and position steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. Claim 14 is rejected due to being dependent upon rejected claim 2.
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) 1-9 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janarthanam et al. (US 20150333379 A1) in view of Rannow (US 20160187221 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Janarthanam teaches a battery system with a pump (fig. 2, 0046) that circulates cooling fluid through a cooling loop alongside at least two integrated differential pressure and temperature sensors (0060) that are on the inlet and outlet of the battery pack respectively and are connected to the same control module, which is described as a determination unit in the instant application. In this case, since the sensors are both controlled by the same control unit they can reasonably be described in the singular form and therefore meets the limitation of the claim. While the exact way in which Janarthanam utilizes the collected data is not exemplified, it would be reasonable for a person of ordinary skill in the art to be able to use a differential pressure sensor control module to monitor the pressure in a variety of ways that end in the same result of combining the obtained data and determining if there is a coolant leakage (0061 shows that the system of Janarthanam can be designed to determine leakage and is factored into the embodiment, 0023 further shows that estimated values are stored in a lookup table and depend upon pressure and temperature values which are mutually dependent upon flow rate).
Regarding the way in which the data is used, Rannow teaches a leak detection system where two values are determined and compared to each other repeatedly to measure the difference and then whether or not there is a leak is evaluated based off of comparing the difference to a predetermined value (fig. 5a, 0043, 0044). This difference value is a plurality of values which includes a minimum value of differences and all of the values are integrated over time to form a determination on if there is a leak or not (Rannow fig. 5a, while it is directed to flow rate, pressure is dependent upon the flow rate and is also measured and can be analyzed in the same manner to determine a leak). While Rannow is not directed to a battery system in particular, it is considered analogous art because it gives pertinent information on how to determine a leakage of a fluid system.
As Janarthanam is silent with respect to the particular leak protocol, which prompts one of ordinary skill to look to related art, it would be obvious to use the difference integrated value for leak detection as described in Rannow for the method in which the data is evaluated in the battery system of Janarthanam.
Regarding claim 2, Janarthanam teaches a battery system with a pump (fig. 2, 0046) that circulates cooling fluid through a cooling loop alongside at least two integrated differential pressure and temperature sensors (0060) that are on the inlet and outlet of the battery pack respectively and are connected to the same control module, which is described as a determination unit in the instant application. In this case, since the sensors are both controlled by the same control unit they can reasonably be described in the singular form and therefore meets the limitation of the claim. While the exact way in which Janarthanam utilizes the collected data is not exemplified, it would be reasonable for a person of ordinary skill in the art to be able to use the differential pressure sensor and the control module to monitor the pressure in a variety of ways that end in the same result of determining if there is a coolant leakage (0061 shows that the system of Janarthanam can be designed to determine leakage and is factored into the embodiment, 0062 further explains there are calibrated threshold values stored in a lookup table).. Further, Janarthanam teaches that the thermal management system can selectively communicate coolant to various components, such as the battery system, via the control module (0040, 0059, control module is the collective term for the system that the thermal management system is part of and which the coolant loop and battery pack are connected to). While Janarthanam does not explicitly state the kind of pump, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that increasing a rotation speed would increase the flow rate, and as the control module can selectively communicate the coolant to various components via the pump it would be capable of changing the rotation speed of a pump as necessary (0060, control module can infer a coolant flow rate through the battery pack showing it has the capability of changing the flow rate). Regarding the part of the claim where the differential pressure is taken at a different flow rate to compare the result of the pressure sensor, if the control module can measure and respond to changes at a one unspecified flow rate it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that it would be able to do the exact same at a different unspecified flow rate and compare results (0062, threshold tables show that they have predetermined data that they are using to compare to the live data).
Regarding the way in which the data is used, Rannow teaches a leak detection system where two values are determined and compared to each other to measure the difference and then whether or not there is a leak is evaluated based off of comparing the difference to a predetermined value (fig. 5a, 0043, 0044). Rannow further teaches that an initial pressure can be measured, a provisional determination, and then a control valve is opened to increase the flow rate and the pressure is re-measured and compared to a predetermined value to determine if the pressure increased as expected, a verification process. After verification, a determination is made on if there is a leak or not (Fig. 6a, 0049). While Rannow is not directed to a battery system in particular, it is considered analogous art because it gives pertinent information on how to determine a leakage of a fluid system.
As Janarthanam is silent with respect to the particular leak protocol, which prompts one of ordinary skill to look to related art, it would be obvious to use the difference integrated value for leak detection as described in Rannow for the method in which the data is evaluated in the battery system of Janarthanam.
Regarding claim 3, Janarthanam in view of Rannow teaches the battery system of claim 1 as described above and which meets the limitations of this claim due to the presence of the integrated temperature and pressure sensors described (0005, 0060). The limitation of “the estimated value” in this case is referring to an estimated pressure value which is met and described above regarding the lookup tables explained regarding claim 1 and the way in which the data of Janarthanam is utilized.
Regarding claim 4, Janarthanam teaches a battery system with a pump (fig. 2, 0046) that circulates cooling fluid through a cooling loop alongside at least two integrated differential pressure and temperature sensors (0060) that are on the inlet and outlet of the battery pack respectively and are connected to the same control module, which is described as a determination unit in the instant application. In this case, since the sensors are both controlled by the same control unit they can reasonably be described in the singular form and therefore meets the limitation of the claim. While the exact way in which Janarthanam utilizes the collected data is not exemplified, it would be reasonable for a person of ordinary skill in the art to be able to use the differential pressure sensor and the control module to monitor the pressure in a variety of ways that end in the same result of determining if there is a coolant leakage (0061 shows that the system of Janarthanam can be designed to determine leakage and is factored into the embodiment, 0062 further explains there are calibrated threshold values stored in a lookup table). Further, Janarthanam teaches that the thermal management system can selectively communicate coolant to various components, such as the battery system, via the control module and a pump (0040, 0059, control module is the collective term for the system that the thermal management system is part of and which the coolant loop and battery pack are connected to).
Regarding the way in which the data is used, Rannow teaches a leak detection system where two values are determined and compared to each other repeatedly to measure the difference and then whether or not there is a leak is evaluated based off of comparing the difference to a predetermined value (fig. 5a, 0043, 0044). This difference value is a plurality of values which includes a minimum value of differences and all of the values are integrated over time to form a determination on if there is a leak or not (Rannow fig. 5a, while it is directed to flow rate, pressure is dependent upon the flow rate and is also measured and can be analyzed in the same manner to determine a leak). While Rannow is not directed to a battery system in particular, it is considered analogous art because it gives pertinent information on how to determine a leakage of a fluid system. As Janarthanam is silent with respect to the particular leak protocol, which prompts one of ordinary skill to look to related art, it would be obvious to use the difference integrated value for leak detection as described in Rannow for the method in which the data is evaluated in the battery system of Janarthanam.
Regarding claim 5, Janarthanam in view of Rannow teaches the battery system of claim 4 described above and meets the limitation of the claim as there are pressure sensors, in this case the inlet sensor of the battery pack can be described as the outlet sensor of the pump (fig. 2, pump 82-1 and sensor 76) and the determination unit is capable of determining a leakage anywhere in the coolant flow path as described above regarding claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Janarthanam in view of Rannow teaches the battery system of claim 4 described above and meets the limitation of the claim as there are pressure sensors (fig. 2, sensor 76 is after a coolant port from pump, 80, and before the battery pack) and the determination unit is capable of determining a leakage and changing flow rate as described above regarding claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, Janarthanam in view of Rannow teaches the battery system of claim 4 described above and meets the limitation of the claim as the cooling fluid passes through the output of the battery and is recycled back to the start to enter the input of the cooling pump (fig. 2, sensor 96, cooling pump 82-1, and travel paths C1 and C4). This meets the limitation of the claim as it can be described as detecting at least a pressure of the coolant passing through the inlet of the coolant pump. the determination unit is capable of determining a leakage and estimating a leakage location as described above regarding claim 4 (0056, detect if the leak is in the battery pack or a remote location).
Regarding claim 8, Janarthanam in view of Rannow teaches the battery system of claim 4 described above and further teaches the two pressure sensors which can be described as a pump inlet pressure sensor and a pump outlet pressure sensor respectively. in this case the inlet sensor of the battery pack can be described as the outlet sensor of the pump (fig. 2, pump 82-1 and sensor 76). And the outlet sensor of the battery pack can be described as an inlet sensor of the pump (fig. 2, sensor 96, cooling pump 82-1, and travel paths C1 and C4). It should be noted that the sensors are connected to the same control module and could be considered part of the same unit and therefore referred to in the singular form as necessary. the determination unit is capable of determining a leakage as described above regarding claim 4 and meets the limitation of the claim.
Regarding claim 9, Janarthanam in view of Rannow teaches the battery system of claim 4 described above and further teaches that there can be three sensors (0075). While Janarthanam exemplifies in this embodiment the second and third sensors being temperature sensors rather than integrated temperature and pressure sensors, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take the integrated pressure and temperature sensors from a different embodiment, such as the one described regarding claim 4 above, and apply it to the three sensors embodiment to collect more data at different points along the coolant flow path to make a more informed decision on coolant flow activities (0077, embodiments can be combined). Janarthanam teaches that it can detect a leakage as described above regarding claim 4, as well as a location (0056, can detect if there is coolant loss within the battery pack or in some other remote location).
Regarding claim 12, Janarthanam in view of Rannow teaches the battery system of claim 1 described above and Rannow teaches that the electronic controllers have memory which is used to store data (Rannow 0028). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have RAM in the controller in order to accumulate or store data.
Regarding claim 13, Janarthanam in view of Rannow teaches the battery system of claim 4 described above and Rannow teaches that the electronic controllers have memory which is used to store data (Rannow 0028). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have RAM in the controller in order to accumulate or store data.
Regarding claim 14, Janarthanam in view of Rannow teaches the battery system of claim 2 described above and Rannow teaches that the flow rate, the pump rotation speed in the case of modified Janarthanam, increases significantly and the process can be repeated any number of times (Rannow fig. 6a).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janarthanam in view of Rannow and further in view of Lee (US 20220034746 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Janarthanam in view of Rannow teaches the battery system of claim 9 described above and further teaches that there is a connected radiator along the flow path as well as a bypass flow path. (fig. 2, 0052, 0053, T-joint, 90, splits off into the bypass flow path, C4, and the radiator flow path, C1, which are parallel to each other).
Janarthanam does not teach that the T-joint is a valve and does not teach an attached controller that can selectively close the paths which prompts one of ordinary skill to look at related art.
Lee teaches a battery cooling circuit where coolant is propelled through the pipes by an electric water pump (Lee, 0039). The cooling circuit also has a radiator flow path and a bypass flow path that are parallel to each other (Fig. 2, 0041, valve 228 splits off into the radiator flow path and the bypass flow path). Lee further teaches that the valve can be controlled by a controller and the flow path and flow rate can be changed accordingly in response to a leakage (0053).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the bypass flow path and controllable valve of Lee with the cooling system of Janarthanam. Doing this combination would allow Janarthanam to more effectively handle a leakage situation because, while Janarthanam does have a path that can be described as a bypass flow path, its main use is to store extra coolant if the battery needs extra cooling and not as a way to continue coolant flow in the presence of a leak. Adding the controllable valve and bypass path gives Janarthanam a way to divert the flow from the leakage path while continuing operation and it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to be able and motivated to either add the controller of Lee that would be capable of opening and closing the valve to the desired value or modifying the existing control module of Janarthanam to include that capability as shown is possible by the controller of Lee (Lee, 0038).
Regarding claim 11, Janarthanam in view of Rannow teaches the battery system of claim 4 described above and further teaches that there is a connected radiator along the flow path as well as a bypass flow path. (fig. 2, 0052, 0053, T-joint 90 splits off into the bypass flow path C4 and the radiator flow path C1 which are parallel to each other). Janarthanam also teaches that there can be three sensors (0075). While Janarthanam exemplifies in this embodiment the second and third sensors being temperature sensors rather than integrated temperature and pressure sensors, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take the integrated pressure and temperature sensors from a different embodiment, such as the one described regarding claim 4 above, and apply it to the three sensors to collect more data at different points along the coolant flow path to make a more informed decision on coolant flow activities (0077, embodiments can be combined).
Janarthanam does not teach that the bypass flow path is controlled by a controllable valve, nor does it exemplify estimating a coolant distribution and responding accordingly which prompts one of ordinary skill to look at related art.
Lee teaches a battery cooling circuit where coolant is propelled through the pipes by an electric water pump (Lee, 0039). The cooling circuit also has a radiator flow path and a bypass flow path that are parallel to each other (Fig. 2, 0041, valve 228 splits off into the radiator flow path and the bypass flow path). Lee further teaches that the valve can be controlled by a controller and the flow path and flow rate can be changed accordingly in response to a leakage or other abnormality (0053). Lee further teaches that the controller can detect a position at which the leakage, or lack thereof, occurs by using the data obtained from the pressure sensors (0051). Since the controller is capable of estimating at least one point it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that it is also able to estimate multiple points and record it for one to understand how the coolant is distributed. It should be noted that the instant application describes both a determination unit and a controller, in this case Lee’s controller can be considered both.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the bypass flow path and controllable valve of Lee with the cooling system of Janarthanam. Doing this combination would allow Janarthanam to more effectively handle a leakage situation because, while Janarthanam does have a path that can be described as a bypass flow path, its main use is to store extra coolant if the battery needs extra cooling and not as a way to continue coolant flow in the presence of a leak. Adding the controllable valve and bypass path gives Janarthanam a way to divert the flow from the leakage path while continuing operation and it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to be able and motivated to either add the controller of Lee that would be capable of opening and closing the valve to the desired value alongside calculating the coolant distribution, or modify the existing control module of Janarthanam to include those capabilities as shown is possible by the controller of Lee (Lee, 0038, 0039).
Response to Amendment
The amendments to claims 1-11 have changed the 112(f) claim interpretation of the prior office action and therefore the 112(f) interpretation is being withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 2 and 4 have overcome the claim objections of the prior office action and therefore the objection to claims 2 and 4 are being withdrawn.
New claims 12-14 have been added and will be examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the argument for the 101 rejections, the arguments are unpersuasive. As discussed in the interview on 05/21/2026 the controller has to have some form of post-solution activity in order to overcome the 101 rejections. As written, claims 1, 2, and 4 all end with simply making a determination and no further activity is taken in response to that determination. Any further specifics mentioned in the specification are not pertinent to the claims as written. Regarding specifically claim 2, increasing a rotation speed of a generic pump known in the art, which is exemplified by Janarthanam as described in the rejection regarding claim 2, is known as insignificant extra-solution activity under Alice prongs 2(a) and 2(b). Without any further clarification of the pump being a specific type of pump not commonly known or used in the art, or some sort of post solution activity, claim 2 is ineligible in view of the Alice test as discussed above regarding the 101 rejection of claim 2, See MPEP 2106.05.
Regarding the argument for the 103 rejections, the arguments are unpersuasive. For the argument that Rannow doesn’t teach integrating the minimum values obtained over a predetermined period of time, Janarthanam in view of Rannow teaches repeatedly integrating a range of flow rates, and the pressures resulting from the flow rate, of which a minimum would be included (Rannow figs. 5a and 6).
Regarding the argument of the “verification process”, applicant’s argument alludes that Janarthanam can be interpreted as having the ability to change the pump operation and Rannow can be interpreted as having the ability to remeasure in response to a change in the valve operation, also known as the flow rate. This combination means that the “verification process” is capable of being performed by Janarthanam in view of Rannow because it is simply a matter of measuring pressure at a variety of flow rates regardless of the reason behind the change. Further, Rannow figure 6a shows that the pressure is measured at a low flow rate and then the control valve is opened to induce a higher flow rate and the pressure is remeasured.
In view of the above responses, the 101 and 103 arguments are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 ET.
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 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.
/SEAN R. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights