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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received 02/04/2026:
Claims 1-17 are pending in the current application. Claims 5-6 remain withdrawn. Claims 1 and 13 have been amended.
The previous prior art rejection is withdrawn in light of the amendment. However, a new prior art rejection is applied. All changed made to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
The Terminal Disclaimer filed 02/04/2026 has been accepted. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection has been overcome.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 recites “…the base plate has a planar surface and a first sidewall and a second side wall…the first sidewall and the second sidewall…the first side wall defines…”. Claims 13, 15, and 16 recite “…[first/second] side wall…”. Examiner notes amending for consistency the walls as either “sidewall” or “side wall”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-4 and 7-17 are objected to for depending on 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al. (JP 2014220089 A) in view of Mascianica et al. (US 2017/0125865).
Regarding claim 1, Ando teaches a battery module, comprising:
a cell stack 20 defined by a stack of a plurality of battery cells, the plurality of battery cells in
the cell stack collectively defining a lower surface of the cell stack; and
a module housing configured to accommodate the cell stack, the module housing having a lower housing, a pair of side housings, a front housing, a rear housing, and an upper housing, for respectively covering a lower portion, a left and right side portion, a front portion, a rear portion, and an upper portion of the cell stack (as shown in examiner annotated Figs. below), wherein the lower housing includes:
a base plate 40 configured to entirely cover the lower surface of the cell stack, the base plate having a hole region defining a first channel, or inside the first hollow 42b in at least one side of the base plate 40 along a longitudinal direction of the base plate (P14-17); and
a plurality of spacers 42-45 disposed at predetermined intervals along the base plate 40 and configured to support the cell stack so as to space the cell stack away from a surface of the base plate, such that an empty space is defined between the cell stack and the base plate (P20-23), wherein the hole region communicates with the empty space such that a cooling medium can be supplied to the empty space,
wherein the cooling medium in the empty space comes into direct contact with the plurality of battery cells via the lower surface of the cell stack exposed to the empty space wherein the base plate has a planar surface and a first sidewall and a second side wall projecting upwardly from the planar surface in a height direction, the first and second side walls extending parallel to one another along the longitudinal direction and being positioned on opposite sides of the base plate in a width direction, the width direction being orthogonal to the longitudinal direction (P14-21), and
wherein the first side wall defines the first channel therein extending along the longitudinal direction (abstract, Fig. 3), as shown in Examiner annotated Figs. below:
PNG
media_image1.png
484
527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
311
456
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While Ando teaches a first embodiments wherein the cooling medium in the empty space comes into direct contact with the plurality of battery cells via the lower surface of the cell stack exposed to the empty space (P7.19-21), one of ordinary skill in the art would be further motivated to have the cooling medium in the empty space come into direct contact with the plurality of battery cells via the lower surface of the cell stack exposed to the empty space in light of Mascianica.
Mascianica, in a similar field of endeavor related to a battery module cooling structure, teaches coolant in direct contact with the cells reduces the thermal resistance of the cooling system compared to traditional cold plate designs by eliminating the thermal resistance of the cold-plate top and the thermal resistance of the TIM from the system. This creates a more efficient heat transfer between the cells and the coolant compared to traditional designs (P25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the cooling medium in the empty space come into direct contact with the plurality of battery cells via the lower surface of the cell stack exposed to the empty space of Ando, to reduce thermal resistance, as taught by Mascianica.
While modified Ando teaches the cell stack disposed between the first sidewall and the second sidewall with at least the first channel extending therein, such that at least a portion of the cell stack is accommodated therebetween, Ando is silent in teaching at least a portion of the cell stack is disposed directly between the first and second sidewall, and teaches the cell stack positioned on top of the first and second sidewall (Fig. 3).
However, Mascianica of modified Ando teaches cell stacks can be arranged on top of a first and second sidewall (Fig. 6), or a ledge 106 can be integrated into sidewalls to securely fasten the at least a portion of the cell stack directly between a first and second sidewall. Incorporating a ledge 106 in the sidewalls allows the cell stacks to be securely fastened to the surface allowing compression of the cells and creating a strong liquid-tight seal (P30-31.35.44; Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to integrate a ledge on the first and second sidewall of modified Ando, positioning the cell stack at least partly directly between the first second sidewall, to securely press the cells together in place and have stronger liquid-tight seal, as taught by Mascianica.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious, (as an obvious design choice) absent persuasive evidence that the particular claimed configuration is significant, to position the cells directly on top, or on a stepped top of the sidewalls. MPEP 2144.04 The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. MPEP 2143 Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art could easily have combined a ledge on the sidewalls with channels of Ando to position the cells, as it would not produce new of different function – positioning of the cells relative to the cooling chamber/channels. MPEP 2143
Regarding claim 2, modified Ando teaches the plurality of spacers include a first spacer and a second spacer provided at a first end and a second end of the base plate, respectively, in the longitudinal direction D, the first spacer, or third rib 44 and the second spacer, or fourth rib 45 extending along a width direction of the base plate so that both opposing ends of each of the first and second spacers are in contact with both respective sides of the base plate, in surface contact with the batteries, improving rigidity of the case (P21.23.26.29; Fig. 3). The flow path extends along both sides of supports and has a number of inlet/outlet cross-channels that may correspond with the number of cells increasing contact cooling (P18-21), as shown in annotated Figures, above.
Regarding claim 3, modified Ando teaches including spacers, or ribs to improve rigidity to the base plate and divided parallel channels (P18-20).
Modified Ando is silent in teaching the plurality of spacers further include at least one third spacer spaced apart from the first spacer and the second spacer and provided between the first spacer and the second spacer; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have a third spacer spaced apart from the first spacer and the second spacer and provided between the first spacer and the second spacer to add rigidity and to increase contact with cells by dividing the channels (similar to that of the fin block) and because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 VI B The results are not unexpected because merely including an additional spacer does not change the function of the cooling channel, inlet/outlets, tray, or batteries and provides the exact functionality taught by modified Ando – to provide a battery module with effective heat dissipation.
Regarding claim 9, Ando teaches no gap is formed between adjacent battery cells (P7.27).
Modified Ando is silent in teaching an adhesive is interposed between the cell stack and the plurality of spacers to prevent the cooling medium from leaking between the cell stack and the plurality of spacers; however, Mascianica teaches an adhesive interposed between the cell stack and the plurality of spacers, or ledges 106/120 to prevent the cooling medium from leaking between the cell stack and the plurality of spacers (P26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have an adhesive is interposed between the cell stack and the plurality of spacers of Ando, as taught by Mascianica to prevent the cooling medium from leaking between the cell stack and the plurality of spacers. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, modified Ando is silent in teaching a supply tube and a discharge tube connected to a first end and a second end of the hole region of the base plate, respectively, so that the cooling medium can flow into or out of the empty space; however, Mascianica teaches a supply tube, or inlet port 110, and a discharge tube, or outlet port 112 connected to a first end and a second end of the hole region of the base plate, respectively, so that the cooling medium can flow into or out of the empty space (P23-24; Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have a supply tube and a discharge tube connected to a first end and a second end of the hole region of the base plate of modified Ando, so that the cooling medium can flow into or out of the empty space, as taught by Mascianica. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. MPEP 2143 B
Regarding claim 17, Ando teaches no gap is formed between adjacent battery cells (P7.27).
Ando is silent in teaching a seal is positioned between each of the plurality of battery cells of the cell stack such that the cooling medium in direct contact with the lower surface of the cell stack is prevented from penetrating into any space between the plurality of battery cells; however, Mascianica teaches a seal, or sealant is positioned between each of the plurality of battery cells of the cell stack such that the cooling medium in direct contact with the lower surface of the cell stack is prevented from penetrating into any space between the plurality of battery cells (P22-23.26.30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have a seal is positioned between each of the plurality of battery cells of the cell stack such that the cooling medium in direct contact with the lower surface of the cell stack is prevented from penetrating into any space between the plurality of battery cells of modified Ando, as taught by Mascianica. With respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando in view of Mascianica as applied to at least claim 3 above, and further in view of Young Il et al. (KR 20160048564).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ando teaches the at least one side of the base plate along the longitudinal direction comprises a first side and a second side, which correspond to respective sides of the base plate opposite to each other, and wherein the hole region includes: a first region formed in the first side to communicate from an exterior of the base plate to a first empty space with a plurality of flow channels (P18-22; Fig. 2-4).
Modified Ando teaches a plurality of separated flow paths from the first side to the second side, but is silent in teaching first empty space positioned between the first spacer and the third spacer; a second region formed in the second side to communicate from the first empty space to a second empty space positioned between the third spacer and the second spacer; and a third region formed in the first side to communicate from the second empty space to the exterior of the base plate; however, Young Il, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a plurality of cooling channels for a battery arranged between a first and second side of a base with channels separated by spacers to increase cooling efficiency (pg. 1-4), as can be seen in examiner annotated Fig. 3 of Young Il below.
PNG
media_image3.png
565
498
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a flow channel configuration according to Young Il wherein the at least one side of the base plate along the longitudinal direction comprises a first side and a second side, which correspond to respective sides of the base plate opposite to each other, and wherein the hole region includes: a first region formed in the first side to communicate from an exterior of the base plate to a first empty space positioned between the first spacer and the third spacer; a second region formed in the second side to communicate from the first empty space to a second empty space positioned between the third spacer and the second spacer; and a third region formed in the first side to communicate from the second empty space to the exterior of the base plate in modified Ando because one of ordinary skill in the art would have be able to carry out such a substitution, and the results are reasonably predictable.
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. MPEP 2143 B "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando in view of Mascianica as applied to at least claim 2 above, and further in view of Zedell et al. (US 6,068,946).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ando is silent in teaching the at least one side of the base plate along the longitudinal direction comprises a first side and a second side, which correspond to respective sides of the base plate opposite to each other, and wherein the first and second sides each have a coupling groove configured to engage a coupling protrusion protruding downwardly from a lower end of the respective side housing however, Zedell, in a similar field of endeavor related to battery modules, teaches having the sides of a base plate 40/70 (extend higher than the other portions of the base 40), each side having a coupling groove, or arch 50 for engaging a coupling protrusion 90/100 protruding downwardly from a lower end of the respective side housing (thus connecting to upper housing) to provide a housing with a small profile and good mating between parts to have a reliable, strong and durable housing (Col. 2 [16-46]; Fig. 1. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the housing comprise a pair of side housings extending from an upper housing of modified Ando, where the first and second side walls each have a coupling groove for engaging a coupling protrusion protruding downwardly in the height dimension from a lower end of the respective side housing, as taught by Zedell, to have a reliable, strong and durable housing. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Regarding claim 8, modified Ando teaches the first and second sides each include a leakage prevention protrusion, formed by the top of the ribs, protruding towards the cell stack and coming into contact with a respective outermost cell of the cell stack (Fig. 3).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando in view of Mascianica, as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Cha et al. (US 2013/0164576).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ando is silent in teaching battery pack comprising a plurality of the modules according to claim 1; however, Cha, in a similar field of endeavor related to battery modules for devices such as vehicles, teaches a battery pack comprising a plurality of battery modules to provide enhanced performance and process efficiency (P2-3.78-80; Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have a battery pack comprising a plurality of the modules of modified Ando to provide enhanced performance, as taught by Cha. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. MPEP 2143 C It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 VI B
Regarding claim 12, modified Ando teaches a vehicle comprising the battery pack of claim 11 (P30).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ando in view of Mascianica, as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Young Il et al. (KR 20160048564).
Regarding claim 13, Ando teaches using a plurality of spacers, or ribs positioned on the planar surface of the base plate and elongated so as to extend across the base plate in the width direction, each of the plurality of spacers having opposing first and second ends in the width direction in contact with the respective first and second side walls, the plurality of spacers being disposed at predetermined intervals along the longitudinal dimension of the base plate so as to define respective ones of the plurality of empty spaces therebetween, the plurality of spacers being configured to support the cell stack so as to space the cell stack away from the planar surface of the base plate, such that each of the plurality of empty spaces is defined between to provide rigidity to the base plate and improved heat transfer (P18-19.23.27.29; Fig. 3-4; annotated Figs of claim 1, above).
Modified Ando is silent in teaching a first empty space of the plurality of empty spaces being defined between the first spacer and the second spacer, with a second empty space of the plurality of empty spaces being defined between the second spacer and the third spacer; and wherein the first side wall defines a first channel therein extending along the longitudinal direction, and wherein the second side wall defines a second channel therein extending along the longitudinal direction, the first channel having an upstream end in communication with an inlet and a downstream end in communication with the first empty space via a first opening through the first side wall in the width direction, and the second channel having an upstream end in communication with the first empty space via a second opening through the second side wall in the width direction and having a downstream end in communication with the second empty space via a third opening through the second side wall in the width direction; however, Young Il, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a plurality of cooling channels for a battery arranged between a first and second side of a base with channels separated by spacers to increase cooling efficiency (pg. 1-4), as can be seen in examiner annotated Fig. 3 of Young Il below.
PNG
media_image3.png
565
498
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a flow channel configuration according to Young Il in modified Ando in view of Mascianica (teaching same as conventional with batteries as substitution for conventional channel top plate) because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results are reasonably predictable. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. MPEP 2143 B "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, modified Ando in view of Mascianica teaches a cooling fluid comes into direct contact with the plurality of battery cells via the lower surface of the cell stack (P25) in view of the channel configuration of Young Il, where the cooling fluid can be supplied from the inlet to the second empty space via a flow path passing sequentially through the first channel, the first opening, the first empty space, the second opening, the second channel, and the third opening, as shown in annotated Fig. 3 above, and therefore the cooling fluid in the first and second empty spaces of modified Ando comes into direct contact with the plurality of battery cells via the lower surface of the cell stack exposed to the first and second empty spaces.
Furthermore, while modified Ando teaches the cooling fluid as a refrigerant, with one example including air, Mascianica of modified Ando teaches using the system with air or a liquid coolant such as ethylene glycol for enhanced thermal regulation (P15.24-25.29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a liquid as the coolant of modified Ando to enhance thermal regulation.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results were reasonably predictable and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized at the time the invention was made that the capabilities or functions of the combination were predictable. MPEP 2143
Regarding claim 15, modified Ando in view of Mascianica and Young Il teaches the first side wall defines a third channel therein extending along the longitudinal direction, the third channel having a downstream end in communication with an outlet and an upstream end in communication with the second empty space via a fourth opening through the first side wall in the width direction, wherein the inlet/outlet may be within extended through base (Ando) and the channel arrangement (Young Il).
Regarding claim 16, modified Ando teaching an inlet opening extending through a face of the first side wall, the face extending transverse to the planar surface of the base plate, and the first opening being spaced apart from the inlet opening along the longitudinal direction, as shown via Ando (Fig. 3-5) and Young Il (Fig. 3).
While modified Ando is silent in teaching the inlet includes an inlet opening connected to a supply tube so that the inlet opening extends through the face in the longitudinal direction, Mascianica teaches the inlet includes an inlet opening connected to a supply tube so that the inlet opening extends through the face in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a supply tube connected to the inlet of modified Ando as a means to supply the fluid to the battery. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the new claim limitations overcome the previous showing of obviousness. The amendments overcome the previous rejections. New and amended grounds of rejection are above set forth. New and amended grounds of rejection are necessitated by the claim amendments.
Applicant argues the Action alleged that the interpretation of Ando teaches or suggests "wherein the base plate has a planar surface and a first sidewall and a second side wall projecting upwardly from the planar surface in a height direction, the first and second side walls extending parallel to one another along the longitudinal direction and being positioned on opposite sides of the base plate in a width direction" and "wherein the first side wall defines the first channel therein extending along the longitudinal direction." Applicant respectfully traverses each of the rejections of record.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant argues Ando and Mascianica both teach the array disposed on top of the structure defining the coolant chamber.
Examiner notes that Ando teaches the sidewalls comprising cooling chamber/channels, are the structure supporting the cell stack and Mascianica teaches integrating a ledge into the structure supporting the cell stack for improved liquid sealing. As such it would be obvious simply include a ledge, or platform in the supporting walls including chambers of Ando to have the cell stack accommodated directly therebetween. This combination can be seen in annotated Figure below, where the original structure of Ando is positioned over the ledge containing structure of Mascianica to show the mere addition of a ledge.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious, (as an obvious design choice) absent persuasive evidence that the particular claimed configuration is significant, to position the cells directly on top, or on a stepped top of the sidewalls. MPEP 2144.04 The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. MPEP 2143 Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art could easily have combined a ledge on the sidewalls with channels of Ando to position the cells, as it would not produce new of different function – positioning of the cells relative to the cooling chamber/channels. MPEP 2143.
PNG
media_image4.png
360
631
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752