DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed June 1, 2023 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The drawings received June 1, 2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Figure 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
As to Fig. 2 it appears that Fig. 2 is also prior art and should be labeled accordingly.
See paras. [0059]-[0060] which states:
“[0059] Both known separator plates, as shown in Figs. 2 and 3, and separator plates according to the present disclosure, as shown from Fig. 4 onwards, be used in an electrochemical system as shown in Fig.1.”
“[0060] Fig. 2 shows, in a perspective view, two adjacent separator plates 2, known from the prior art, of an electrochemical system of the same type as the system 1 from Fig.1, as well as a membrane electrode assembly (MEA) 10 which is arranged between these adjacent separator plates 2 and is likewise known from the prior art.”
Specification
The specification received June 1, 2023 has been reviewed for examination purposes.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 16, at line 3, the phrase “plate ,” should be “plate, ”. Claim 17 is dependent upon claim 16 and objected to for the same reason.
In claim 18, at line 6, the phrase “plate ,” should be “plate, ”.
Appropriate correction is required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites that the bead top is “cantilevered on a front side of the first separator plate”. The use of the phrase “cantilevered on a front side of the separator plate” is not particularly clear when read in light of the plain meaning of cantilevered.
There are only three explicit recitations of the term cantilevered.
Para. [0016]:
“Accordingly, an assembly for an electrochemical system is proposed. The assembly comprises a first separator plate, which is designed as a single layer and as a stack terminating plate, and a support element, wherein the first separator plate has a first sealing bead for sealing off an area of the first separator plate, wherein the first sealing bead projects out of a plate plane defined by the first separator plate and has a bead interior, which is open on a rear side of the first separator plate, and a bead top, which is cantilevered on a front side of the first separator plate, wherein the support element projects into the bead interior in order to support the bead top. As a result, the bead can usually no longer be deformed beyond its operating point.
Para. [0074]:
In a manner analogous to the bead arrangements 12a-12c described above, the first separator plate 32 has a first sealing bead 12 for sealing off an area of the first separator plate 32. Here, the first sealing bead 12 projects out of a plate plane E32 defined by the first separator plate 32 and has a bead interior 35, which is open on a rear side 24 of the first separator plate 32, and a bead top 36, which is cantilevered on a front side 25 of the first separator plate 32.
Instant claim 1.
A review of the comprehensive disclosure with respect to the bead top 36 is not clear as to how or what structure therein is effectively cantilevered.
In the absence of a clear definition of the term “cantilevered” in the instant invention, the conventional definition of the term “cantilevered” is a projecting beam or member supported at only one end (see CANTILEVER Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster, definition cited of record).
In the instant invention it appears that the bead 36 is attached on both ends of the bead to flat planar portions of the larger comprehensive separator plate. The bead top may project in certain directions but appears to not have a clear free end as the plain meaning of the term “cantilevered” requires. Cutout 63 does not provide for a sufficient cantilevered structure either for while certain cross-sectional views (such as Fig. 6C) may appear to show what could be a cantilevered design at cutouts 63, these cutouts are only holes or openings in the plate as shown in Fig. 6B and therefore does not define a cantilevered structure as bead top 36 appears to be fixed on both ends of the bead structure.
It appears that the bead top is fixed to two ends of the separator plate 32, and the bead top projects out of the plate plane. This would design would not be understood to be “cantilevered”. Therefore, the nature of the invention of claim 1 is not particularly clear as to what “cantilevered” means with respect to a bead top cantilevered on a front side of the first separator plate. The application and claims appear to employ the term but shows a relationship which does not appear to fall under the plain meaning of the term cantilevered. Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 2-20 are dependent upon claim 1 and do not remedy this issue. Therefore, claim 2-20 are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the through-opening" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 3 recites “at least one through-opening” and it is unclear which through-opening, “the through-opening” (singular) in the when more than one through-opening is present (encompassed under the phrase “at least one through-opening”).
Claim 7 recites the limitations "the neutral axis" in line 3 and “the non-compressed state” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recite “the first sealing bead and/or the support element in each case …”. The combination of “and/or” and “in each case” appear contrary as “and/or” is an alternative whereas “in each case” appears to require both and not in the alternative.
Claims 16-17 are indefinite as it first defines a second separator plate comprising a first layer and a second layer but thereafter recites the second separator is identical to the first separator. However, claim 1 is explicit that the first separator is a single layer. Therefore, the second separator of claim 16, comprising two layers, cannot be identical to the first separator which is a single layer. Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 17 is dependent upon claim 16 and does not remedy this issue. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Interpretation
Given the ambiguity of the term cantilevered on a front side, the term cantilevered with respect to the bead top (bead top 36) when read in light of the disclosure is interpreted in terms of structure rather than adjective. A bead structure have the same relative design as the inventive bead structure may be sufficiently “cantilevered on a front side” to the extent that the instant invention bead top is “cantilevered”. It may be that the term “cantilevered” on a front side of the first separator plate” is meant to mean that the bead top projects out of the plate plane in the manner disclosed and depicted in the specification.
Claim 1 recites an assembly “for an electrochemical system” any features pertaining to the electrochemical system which do not further limit the structure of the assembly is held to be intended use.
While intended use recitations and other types of functional language cannot be entirely disregarded. However, in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). See also MPEP § 2114.
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-11 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (WO2013/077488A1).
As to claim 1, Lee discloses an assembly (for an electrochemical system, intended use) comprising:
a first separator plate 100 which is a single layered stack terminating plate, and
a support element 240,
wherein the first separator plate 100 has a first sealing bead 122 for sealing off an area of the first separator plate 100, wherein the first sealing bead 122 projects out of a plate plane defined by the first separator plate 100 and has a bead interior 124, which is open on a rear side of the first separator plate 100, and a bead top, which is cantilevered on a front side of the first separator plate 100, wherein the support element 240 projects into the bead interior in order to support the bead top (see annotated section of Fig. 3 below). The bead projects outwardly from the plate and can also be seen that one end of the bead (outer edge) is free and therefore “cantilevered on a front side of the first separator plate” as best this phrase can be understood as noted in the 112 rejection above.
PNG
media_image1.png
265
803
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, the sealing element above is held to be rigid to some degree.
As to claim 5, the support element 240 extends along the entire course of the first sealing bead 120 (Fig. 4).
As to claim 6, the support element 240 has a rounded-rectangular cross-section (Fig. 4).
As to claim 7, a maximum height of the support element 240 is smaller than a total height of the sealing bead 120 measured from the plate plane to a neutral axis of the bead top in a non-compressed state of assembly (see Fig. 3 above, where the support element 240 has a significantly smaller height than the sealing bead 120 within which the support element 240 resides).
As to claim 8, the plate body is made of metal such as aluminum (see middle of page 4 of the machine translation).
As to claim 9, a contacting plate is connected to the first separator plate in a media tight manner and/or electrically (see annotated portion of Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
331
1057
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 10, the support element 240 and the contacting plate are formed as individual parts and the support element 240 is arranged between the beads of the first separator plate and the contacting plate (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
As to claim 11, the contacting plate is directly adjacent to an end plate 12 and therefore has a fastening ability for fastening the contacting plate to the end plate 12 (see annotated Fig. 1 above). Note that claim 11 does not require fastening to an end plate only that the contacting plate has a structure that provides for the possibility of fastening to another plate (i.e., intended use).
As to claim 14, the assembly includes a first end plate 12 (see annotated Fig. 1 above) and the first sealing bead 120 of the first separator plate points with its bead top away from the first end plate 12 and the support element 240 is arranged between the first separator plate 100 and the first end plate 12.
As to claim 15, as shown in annotated Fig. 1 above, a contacting plate is adjacent to the first end plate 12 and arranged between the first end plate 12 and the first separator plate.
As to claim 16, the assembly includes additional separator plates 120 including one of the layers in the additional separator plates to have the same bead and support element 240 design as identical to the first separator plate and the second separator plates arranged on the front side of the first separator plate, include two layers a where any of the identical separator plates in the stack define a second separator (see Fig. 1).
Claims 1-6, 8-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Albert et al. (DE 10247010A1).
As to claim 1, Albert discloses an assembly (for an electrochemical system, intended use) comprising:
a first separator plate 3a which is a single layered stack terminating plate, and
a support element 13b,
wherein the first separator plate 3a has a first sealing bead 15 for sealing off an area of the first separator plate 3a, wherein the first sealing bead 15 projects out of a plate plane defined by the first separator plate 3a and has a bead interior, which is open on a rear side of the first separator plate 3a, and a bead top, which is cantilevered on a front side of the first separator plate, wherein the support element 13b projects into the bead interior in order to support the bead top (see annotated section of Fig. 7 below). The bead projects outwardly from the plate and it can also be seen that one end of the bead (outer edge adjacent to opening 11) is free and therefore “cantilevered on a front side of the first separator plate” as best this phrase can be understood as noted in the 112 rejection above.
PNG
media_image3.png
491
1295
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, the sealing element above 13b is held to be rigid to some degree, expectedly rigid, even if in a compressed state.
As to claim 3, the sealing bead includes portions 13a and 13b the comprehensive design of which surrounds a through hole opening interior of area 15, effectively sealing off the through-hole opening 11 (Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
460
768
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 4, the support element 13a/13b and the sealing bead has at least one fluid passage 11 for passage of fluid (Fig. 4 above).
As to claim 5, the support element 13a/13b extends along an entire course of the first sealing bead 15 (Fig. 4).
As to claim 6, the support element 13a/13b has a rounded-rectangular cross-section (Fig. 4).
As to claim 8, plate 3a is made of metal (see bottom of page 4 of the machine translation).
As to claim 9, a contacting plate 8a is connected to the first separator plate in a media tight manner (see annotated Fig. 7 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
460
1062
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to claim 10, the support element 13b and the contacting plate 8a are formed as individual parts and the support element 13b is arranged between the beads 15 of first separator plate 3a and the contacting plate 8a (see Fig. 7 above).
As to claim 11, the contacting plate has an exterior surface which has a fastening possibility to additional plates and therefore has a fastening ability for fastening the contacting plate to another plate if need be, that additional plate constituting an end plate. Note that claim 11 does not require fastening to an end plate only that the contacting plate has a structure that provides for the possibility of fastening to another plate (i.e., intended use).
As to claim 12, the sealing bead 15 includes passages which route fluid from manifold region 11 to the internal flow field structure of the separator plate 3a (Figs. 4, 5 and 7, for example).
As to claim 14, the assembly includes a first end plate 8a (see annotated Fig. 7 below) and the first sealing bead 15 of the first separator plate points with its bead top away from the first end plate 8a and the support element 13b is arranged between the first separator plate 3a and the first end plate 8a.
PNG
media_image5.png
460
1062
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-11 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Aono et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0416271).
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. Pending such, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
If foreign priority is perfected, Aono would further apply under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as having an earlier effective filing date.
As to claim 1, Aono discloses an assembly (for an electrochemical system, intended use) comprising:
a first separator plate which is a single layered stack terminating plate, and
a support element (see annotated Fig. 1 below),
wherein the first separator plate has a first sealing bead for sealing off an area of the first separator plate, wherein the first sealing bead projects out of a plate plane defined by the first separator plate and has a bead interior, which is open on a rear side of the first separator plate, and a bead top, which is cantilevered on a front side of the first separator plate, wherein the support element projects into the bead interior in order to support the bead top (see annotated section of Fig. 1 below). The bead projects outwardly from the plate and can also be seen that one end of the bead (outer edge) is free and therefore “cantilevered on a front side of the first separator plate” as best this phrase can be understood as noted in the rejection above.
PNG
media_image6.png
618
1031
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, the gasket above is held to be rigid to some degree.
As to claim 4, the end plate has at least one fluid passage opening for passage of fluid (fuel or oxidant or coolant through passages 29, 30, for example (Fig. 1).
As to claim 8, the separators are metal (para. [0020]).
As to claim 9, a contacting plate 15 is connected to the first separator plate in a media tight manner (see Fig. 1 above).
As to claim 10, the support element and the contacting plate 15 are formed as individual parts and the support element is arranged between the beads of the first separator plate 20 and the contacting plate 15 (see Fig. 1 above).
As to claim 11, the contacting plate 15 is directly adjacent to an end plate 16 and therefore has a fastening ability for fastening the contacting plate 15 to the end plate 16 (see Fig. 1 above). Note that claim 11 does not require fastening to an end plate only that the contacting plate has a structure that provides for the possibility of fastening to another plate (i.e., intended use).
As to claim 14, the assembly includes a first end plate 17 (see Fig. 1 above) and the first sealing bead of the first separator plate points with its bead top away from the first end plate 17 and the support element is arranged between the first separator plate and the first end plate 17.
As to claim 15, as shown in annotated Fig. 1 above, a contacting plate 15 is adjacent to the first end plate 17 and arranged between the first end plate 17 and the first separator plate (Fig. 1 above).
As to claim 16, the assembly includes additional separator plates 20 including one of the layers in the additional separator plates to have the same bead and support element design as identical to the first separator plate and the second separator plates arranged on the front side of the first separator plate, include two layers a where any of the additional separator plates in the stack define a second separator (see Fig. 1).
As to claim 17, the second separator place facing the first separator plate (end most separator plate 20), includes an outer sealing bead, including the gaskets 36 therein and the bead tops extend towards each other and are in parallel to each other (Fig. 1).
As to claim 18, Aono discloses an electrochemical system in Fig. 1 comprising a plurality of separator plates 20 and a second bottom end plate 17 wherein the first and plate 17 has a plurality of media ports for (fuel, oxidant and coolant) and the media ports on the first end plate 17 are fluidically connected to through-openings of the first separator plate 20 (where passages such as passages 29 and 30 reside) and the separator plates 20 are arranged and compressed between the two end plates 17 to form the stack as shown in Fig. 1.
As to claim 19, a support frame 19 and film electrode assembly 18 constitute any number of further assemblies between the separator plates and second end plate 17 (Fig. 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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albert et al. (DE 10247010A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Takada et al. (JP 2007-311081A).
Albert teaches of the contacting plate 8a is connected to the first separator plate 3a in a media tight manner, thus sealing off an area between the contacting plate 8a and the first separator plate (see Fig. 7 above).
Albert does not teach of welding the contacting plate 8a to the first separator plate.
Takada is drawn to the same field of endeavor to fuel cell stack designs for coupling an end plate to a separator of a stack. Takada teaches of including providing a first (end) separator to and adjacent end plate structure (including a contacting plate therein) where the separator is effectively welded along contact points between the separator and the contacting plate of the end plate structure. Directly welding the first separator plate 7A to an adjacent contacting plate 14 was shown to reduce electrical resistance and improve power generation performance.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Albert by welding the first separator plate to the contacting plate as taught by Albert since it would have provided the predictable benefit of reducing electrical resistance and improved power generation performance.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aono et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0416271) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Takada et al. (JP 2007-311081A).
Aono teaches of the contacting plate 15 is connected to the first separator plate in a media tight manner, thus sealing off an area between the contacting plate 15 and the first separator plate (see Fig. 1 above).
Aono does not teach of welding the contacting plate 15 to the first separator plate.
Takada is drawn to the same field of endeavor to fuel cell stack designs for coupling an end plate to a separator of a stack. Takada teaches of including providing a first (end) separator to and adjacent end plate structure (including a contacting plate therein) where the separator is effectively welded along contact points between the separator and the contacting plate of the end plate structure. Directly welding the first separator plate 7A to an adjacent contacting plate 14 was shown to reduce electrical resistance and improve power generation performance.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Aono by welding the first separator plate to the contacting plate as taught by Aono since it would have provided the predictable benefit of reducing electrical resistance and improved power generation performance.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aono et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0416271) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Wariishi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0158604).
Aono teaches of a stack assembly comprising first and second end plates 17.
Aono does not teach of the second end plate non having through-hole opening for fluid passage.
Aono teaches of providing end plates to permit both end plates to have through-openings for fluid flow. Wariishi teaches of providing end plates with one end plate 20a having through-openings for passage of fluid and an opposing end plate 20b in solid form without through-holes (Fig. 1). Wariishi is drawn to the same field of endeavor, fuel cell stack body designs including fluid flow design for the stack body. Providing through openings in both end plates (Aono) or only one end plate with the other end plate being without through-openings (Wariishi) would have been conventional alternative design choices for fluid passages in a fuel cell stack and the implementation of either would have been a matter of design choice for the purpose of effectively flowing fluid in a corresponding stack as needed.
Repositioning or varying the arrangement of fluid flow whether through both end plates or only through one end plate would have been of routine skill in the art as a matter of design choice. Each design would perform the same function of fluid flow to and through a fuel cell stack regardless of relative orientation and would expectedly behave similarly regardless of whether one end plate or both end plates permit fluid flow therethrough.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second end plate of Aono to not have through openings for fluid flow as needed as a matter of design choice for the purpose of providing a suitable fluid flow arrangement to and through a fuel cell stack. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0265667 discloses a first separator plate being a single layer coupled to a corresponding end plate without any support member in the bead structure of the first separator plate. U.S. Patent Application Publication Noa. 2014/0011110 and 2017/0012300 each discloses a fuel cell stack with one end plate not having through-openings for fluid passage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 5pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571) 272-1453. 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.
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725