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 (IDS) submitted on 11/08/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 11-13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuwaki et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220153111 A1 equivalent to U.S. Pat. No. 20220144063 A1) in view of Choi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210331570 A1), and further in view of Lim et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220069403 A1) as further evidenced by Seong et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200136439 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tatsuwaki et al. teaches a high voltage battery mounting structure for a vehicle ([0009] and [0199] teach a battery mounting structure for an vehicle wherein the battery is accessorized with a high-voltage junction board; a skilled artisan recognizes that a high-voltage junction board are specifically designed for high voltage batteries).
Tatsuwaki et al. does not specify that the vehicle is an electric vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi et al. teaches analogous art of a battery mounting structure for a vehicle wherein the vehicle is an eco-friendly vehicle such as an electric vehicle ([0003]). An electric vehicle drives an electric motor by power of a battery and produces less air pollution such as exhaust gas and noised compared with conventional gasoline engine, has longer life, and simplified operation as evident by Seong et al. ([0003]).
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 2 (Tatsuwaki et al.))]
PNG
media_image1.png
524
631
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the vehicle of Tatsuwaki et al. to comprise an electric vehicle as taught by Choi et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide an eco-friendly vehicle in which reduces air pollution exhibits longer life, and is simple in operation as described above.
Tatsuwaki et al. further teaches the high voltage battery mounting structure comprising:
a battery module 82 mounted on a center floor panel 23 ([0009], Fig. 2);
front battery mounting members (bent portion 36a of front side frames 36 comprising branch portions 38 wherein the battery pack is fixed thereto) configured to extend from front side parts (front side sills 31) and coupled to front side members (front side frames 36) ([0034]),
rear battery mounting members (rear frame 41) configured to connect rear side parts (rear end portions 31c of the side sill 31, [0037]) providing support from the center floor panel 23 to the rear cross member 138 ([0138], Fig. 2),
wherein the battery module is coupled to the front battery mounting members and the rear battery mounting members (the battery module is coupled to the front battery mounting members and rear battery mounting members via the branch portion and the rear cross member [0197]).
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 1 (Lim et al.))]
PNG
media_image2.png
384
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tatsuwaki et al. does not specify that front/rear side parts (front/rear side sills) have sealing capabilities; wherein the front side seal part functions to support the center floor panel towards an inside of the electric vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Lim et al. teaches a battery mounting structure for an electric vehicle wherein a floor panel (wherein the battery is mounted [0028], corresponding to a center floor panel of Tatsuwaki et al.) comprises side seal parts 110 (positionally corresponding to the side sills of Tatsuwaki et al.; Fig. 1, [0027]). The side seals function cooperatively with a front seal 120, front member 220, and end seal 150 at the rear of the side seals to provide strength against collision ([0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the front and rear side members (sill parts) of Tatsuwaki et al. to have sealing capabilities and function to provide strength and protection against collision as taught by Lim et al. Hereon, the sill parts/side parts of Tatsuwaki will be referred to as front and rear side seal parts in view of the modification. As Tatsuwaki et al. modified by Lim et al. teaches the claimed structure of a front side seal part, the function of supporting the center floor panel towards an inside of the electric vehicle is deemed inherent and naturally flows from the structure: “if an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima [facie] case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432” (see MPEP 2114(I)).
Regarding Claim 2, Tatsuwaki et al. teaches that the battery module is disposed such that a front part and a rear part of the battery module overlap the front battery mounting members and the rear battery mounting members, respectively (Tatsuwaki et al. teaches that the battery module is coupled to the front battery mounting members and rear battery mounting members via the branch portion and the rear cross member [0197]). Therefore, it would be obvious for the components of the battery module to overlap for attachment there between. Said configuration would be an obvious design choice to establish a secure connection. Further, rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP 2144.01(VI)(A))).
Regarding Claim 4, Tatsuwaki et al. teaches wherein the battery module includes extensions (a right/left front support bracket 135, rear support brackets 136 in which extends from the battery pack comprising the battery module, Fig. 2) provided to extend towards a pair of the front battery mounting members (branch portions 38) and a pair of the rear battery mounting members (left/right rear frames 41) ([0034], Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Tatsuwaki et al. teaches wherein the extensions configured to extend towards the pair of front battery mounting members (front support brackets 135) are divided into a plurality of extensions (divided into two extensions) (Fig. 2, [0138]).
Tatsuwaki et al. does not teach wherein the extensions correspond to a length and shape of the front battery mounting members.
However, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 4 7 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the extensions to correspond to a length and shape of the front battery mounting members to improve the contact between the surfaces and connection there between (i.e., connection can be more difficult between components that are different in shape/length) while also increasing the simplicity of the manufacturing process (i.e., components of the same size/shape can be easily aligned together to ensure correct placement). "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."
Regarding Claim 6, Tatsuwaki et al. teaches wherein the extensions configured to extend towards the pair of rear battery mounting members (rear support brackets 136) are divided into a plurality of extensions (divided into two extensions) (Fig. 2, [0138]).
Regarding Claim 7, Tatsuwaki et al. does not teach wherein the front battery mounting members extend in a vertical direction so as to overlap the extensions.
However, rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP 2144.01(VI)(A)). The claim limitation involves merely rearranging the front battery mounting member of Tatsuwaki et al. to overlap rather than lie under the extensions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the front battery mounting members to extend in a vertical direction to overlap the extensions to further reduce movement and displacement; and further secure a connection there between. "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."
Regarding Claims 8 and 12, Tatsuwaki et al. does not teach where the front battery mounting members have a closed cross-section as required by Claims 8 and 12.
However, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 4 7 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). The proposed limitation involves merely modifying the shape or form of the front battery mounting members to have a folded or bent edge to close off the cross section or interior. The configuration is an obvious design choice that yield predictable results; for example, the folded edges provide a locking mechanism wherein the mounting members can now lock the extensions in place, preventing movement and displacement. "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."
Regarding Claim 11, Tatsuwaki et al. does not teach wherein the rear battery mounting members extend in a vertical direction so as to overlap the extensions, thus having a closed cross-section.
Rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP 2144.01(VI)(A)). The claim limitation involves merely rearranging the rear battery mounting member of Tatsuwaki et al. to overlap rather than lie under the extensions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the front battery mounting members to extend in a vertical direction to overlap the extensions to further reduce movement and displacement; and further secure a connection there between. "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."
Further, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 4 7 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). The proposed limitation involves merely modifying the shape or form of the rear battery mounting members to have a folded or bent edge to close off the cross section or interior. The configuration is an obvious design choice that yield predictable results; for example, the folded edges provide a locking mechanism wherein the mounting members can now lock the extensions in place, preventing movement and displacement. "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."
Regarding Claim 13, Tatsuwaki et al. does not teach wherein each of the rear battery mounting members comprises: a first panel coupled to the extensions so as to overlap the extensions; and a second panel configured to extend so as to have a closed cross-section in a state in which the first panel is coupled to the extensions so as to overlap the extensions, and coupled to the rear cross member.
However, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 4 7 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). The proposed limitation involves merely modifying the shape or form of the rear battery mounting members to have folded edges in which provide a first panel (first edge) and second panel (second edge) to form a closed cross section or interior. The configuration is an obvious design choice that yield predictable results; for example, the folded edges provide a locking mechanism wherein the mounting members can now lock the extensions in place, preventing movement and displacement. "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."
Further, rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP 2144.01(VI)(A)). The claim limitation involves merely rearranging the rear battery mounting member of Tatsuwaki et al. and folded edge thereof to overlap rather than lie under the extensions. Coupling the rear across member and extensions to the first panel is an obvious design choice that further provides a secure connection, preventing movement and displacement. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to further reduce movement and displacement; and further secure a connection there between. "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."
Regarding Claim 18, as applied to Claim 1, Tatsuwaki et al. further teaches a vehicle comprising the high voltage battery mounting structure ([0009],[0199]).
Regarding Claim 19, as applied to Claim 1, Tatsuwaki et al. further teaches a vehicle comprising the high voltage battery mounting structure ([0009],[0199]).
Tatsuwaki et al. does not specify that the vehicle is an electric vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi et al. teaches analogous art of a battery mounting structure for a vehicle wherein the vehicle is an eco-friendly vehicle such as an electric vehicle ([0003]). An electric vehicle drives an electric motor by power of a battery and produces less air pollution such as exhaust gas and noised compared with conventional gasoline engine, has longer life, and simplified operation as evident by Seong et al. ([0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the vehicle of Tatsuwaki et al. to comprise an electric vehicle as taught by Choi et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide an eco-friendly vehicle in which reduces air pollution exhibits longer life, and is simple in operation as described above.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuwaki et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220153111 A1 equivalent to U.S. Pat. No. 20220144063 A1) in view of Choi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210331570 A1) and Lim et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220069403 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Asai et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160236574 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Tatsuwaki et al. does not teach wherein the front battery mounting members connect the front side seal parts to a dash panel provided on the center floor panel.
In the same field of endeavor, Asai et al. teaches analogous art of a vehicle floor structure wherein a dash panel is provided as a partition member between the center floor panel 47, a front compartment 57; and is used to separate a vehicle interior from the floor panel ([0042], Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the center floor panel of Tatsuwaki et al. to include a dash panel provided on the center floor panel as taught by Asai et al. Further, establishing connection there between the front battery mounting members, the front side seal parts, and dash panel is an obvious engineering design choice that merely involves connecting or integrating components as a fundamental, routine step. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a secure connection between said components, preventing movement and damage thereof. Further, the dash panel can increase the rigidity of the vehicle structure and provide further protection against impact. "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."
Claims 9-10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuwaki et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220153111 A1 equivalent to U.S. Pat. No. 20220144063 A1) in view of Choi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210331570 A1) and Lim et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220069403 A1), and further in view of Takahashi et al. (JP Pat. No. 2017024481 A).
Regarding Claim 9, as Tatsuwaki et al. establishes connection between battery mounting members and the extensions of the battery module ([0034], Fig. 2), it would be obvious to utilize any suitable connection means known in the field of endeavor to establish said connection.
Tatsuwaki et al. does not teach wherein the front battery mounting members have a plurality of fastening holes formed at positions corresponding to a plurality of through holes formed through the extensions.
In the same field of endeavor, Takahashi et al. teaches analogous art of a battery unit for a vehicle wherein battery mounting members (side plate 40) comprise a plurality of holes formed at positions corresponding to a plurality of through holes forming a threaded region through the battery modules 11 to establish a secure connection there between ([0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the connection mechanism between the battery mounting members and the extensions of the battery module of Tatsuwaki et al. wherein said components each comprise through holes at corresponding locations to establish a secure connection there between as taught by Takahashi et al. In addition, the use of a known technique to improve similar products (methods) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 10, the connection mechanism between the battery mounting members and the extensions of the battery module of Tatsuwaki et al. are modified by Takahashi et al. wherein said components comprise through holes at corresponding locations to establish a secure connection there between as applied to Claim 9.
Tatsuwaki et al. does not teach fastening members inserted into the through holes and the fastening holes in a state in which the through holes and the fastening holes coincide with each other, the fastening members being fastened to nut members provided in the front battery mounting members and the extensions so as to fasten the battery module.
Takahashi et al. further teaches fastening members (screws) inserted into through holes wherein nut members are fastened thereto to establish a secure connection ([0030], [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the connection mechanism between the battery mounting members and the extensions of the battery module of Tatsuwaki et al. wherein fastening members are inserted into the through holes in which the through holes and the fastening holes coincide with each other as taught by Takahashi et al.; resulting in the fastening members being fastened to nut members provided in the front battery mounting members and the extensions so as to fasten the battery module as suggested to establish a secure connection there between. In addition, the use of a known technique to improve similar products (methods) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 14, As Tatsuwaki et al. establishes connection between battery mounting members and the extensions of the battery module ([0034], Fig. 2), it would be obvious to utilize any connection means known in the field of endeavor to establish said connection.
Tatsuwaki et al. does not teach wherein the rear battery mounting members have a plurality of fastening holes formed at positions corresponding to a plurality of through holes formed through the extensions.
In the same field of endeavor, Takahashi et al. teaches analogous art of a battery unit for a vehicle wherein battery mounting members (side plate 40) comprise a plurality of holes formed at position corresponding to a plurality of through holes formed through the battery modules 11 to establish a secure connection there between ([0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the connection mechanism between the battery mounting members and the extensions of the battery module of Tatsuwaki et al. wherein said components comprise through holes at corresponding locations to establish a secure connection there between as taught by Takahashi et al. In addition, the use of a known technique to improve similar products (methods) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 15, Tatsuwaki et al. does not teach fastening members inserted into the through holes and the fastening holes in a state in which the through holes and the fastening holes coincide with each other, the fastening members being fastened to nut members provided in the rear battery mounting members and the extensions so as to fasten the battery module.
Takahashi et al. further teaches fastening members (screws) inserted into through holes wherein nut members are fastened thereto to establish a secure connection ([0030], [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the connection mechanism between the battery mounting members and the extensions of the battery module of Tatsuwaki et al. wherein fastening members are inserted into the through holes in which the through holes and the fastening holes coincide with each other as taught by Takahashi et al.; resulting in the fastening members being fastened to nut members provided in the rear battery mounting members and the extensions so as to fasten the battery module as suggested to establish a secure connection there between. In addition, the use of a known technique to improve similar products (methods) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuwaki et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220153111 A1 equivalent to U.S. Pat. No. 20220144063 A1) in view of Choi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210331570 A1) and Lim et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220069403 A1), and further in view of Hara et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190118863 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Tatsuwaki et al. does not teach wherein a part of each of the front battery mounting members is connected to an interior-side dash cross member of the vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Hara et al. teaches analogous art of a vehicle structure wherein a dash cross member is provided on a cabin-side (interior) of the vehicle and extends from the front side frame to the rear portion ([0081]). Utilizing the dash cross member increases the movement of the power unit toward the rear of the vehicle body, and the deformation amount of the front side frame can be increased; it is therefore possible to suitably ensure the collision stroke by a front collision and reliably absorb the impact energy ([0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the high voltage battery mounting structure of Tatsuwaki et al. to include a dash cross member provided on a cabin-side (interior) of the vehicle and extending from the front side frame to the rear portion as taught by Hara et al. to provide collision protection. Further, it would have been an obvious engineering design to establish connection wherein a part of each of the front battery mounting members is connected to an interior-side dash cross member of the vehicle to prevent movement and displacement.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuwaki et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220153111 A1 equivalent to U.S. Pat. No. 20220144063 A1) in view of Choi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210331570 A1) and Lim et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220069403 A1), and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220126919 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Tatsuwaki et al. does not teach wherein the rear battery mounting members have a plurality of bulkheads provided therein.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee et al. teaches analogous art of a structure for a vehicle wherein the rear side members are provided with a plurality of bulkheads to increase the stiffness thereof and provide increased crash protection ([0005]).
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 rear battery mounting members of Tatsuwaki et al. to comprise a plurality of bulkheads as taught by Lee et al. to increase the stiffness thereof and provide increased crash protection ([0005]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kang (U.S. Pat. No. 20210362571 A1) is in the same field of endeavor, teaching analogous art of a vehicle body structure wherein parts are coupled utilizing closed cross section structures to increase the rigidity and strength of the corresponding connection portion ([0043]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights