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 .
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to for the following informalities:
In claim 8, line 1, “the expandable element configured” should read “the expandable element is configured” for proper grammar.
In claim 16, line 1, “secured to frame” should read “secured to a frame” for proper grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6–8, 15, 16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feltham et al. (US 20230033505 A1) (Feltham).
Regarding claim 1, Feltham discloses a thermal barrier assembly (fig. 1) for a traction battery pack (see EV pack, ¶ 0028), comprising (per fig. 1) a frame extending longitudinally along an axis (e.g., crossmember 106b); and an expandable element secured to the frame (intumescent material 108a), the expandable element configured to expand against a structure in response to a battery cell venting event (e.g., against housing side wall 102, as implied by expanding to fill gaps and contacting opposing surfaces (such as between side wall 102 and crossmember 106b/first bay 104b) in ¶ 0010 and 0011) to block vent byproducts from flowing through a gap between the structure and the frame (see isolation of heat, i.e., vented byproduct, between bays and/or enclosures—and, thus, between crossmember frame and “structure” such as side wall—in ¶ 0006).
Regarding claim 4, Feltham discloses the thermal barrier assembly of claim 1, wherein the expandable element is a foam (¶ 0008).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Feltham discloses the thermal barrier assembly of claim 1, wherein the structure is enclosure wall (side wall 102, fig. 1) and is an enclosure cover (depending on how the battery pack is rotated, the side wall could be considered an enclosure “cover” in that it “covers” the bays/modules).
Regarding claim 8, Feltham discloses the thermal barrier assembly of claim 1, wherein the expandable element is configured to expand to redirect a flow of vent byproducts emitted from at least one battery cell within a first array (e.g., a defective cell within first bay 104a of fig. 1) from flowing over an array terminal of a second array (e.g., isolating from second bay 104b by filling gap between them, where each bay would necessarily include an “array terminal” as a group of cell terminals for external output so that the expandable element would be configured to redirect flow of byproducts like heat from flowing over array terminal of second array), the frame and the expandable element disposed between the first array and the second array (fig. 1).
Regarding claims 15, 16, 18, and 19, Feltham discloses a method of shielding areas within a traction battery pack (e.g., fig. 1, ¶ 0006, 0010, and 0011; note that the battery pack is used for EVs (¶ 0028) and, thus, is a traction pack), comprising: in response to a venting event, expanding an expandable element against a structure within a traction battery pack (expanding intumescent material 108a against structure such as side wall 102 and filling gap between bays 104a and 104b), implied by expanding to contact opposing surface upon exposure to heat in ¶ 0006, 0010, 0011) to shield a battery array from vent byproducts discharged from at least one battery cell in another battery array (see isolating bays/arrays from each other via intumescent material’s expansion in ¶ 0006),
wherein the expandable element is secured to a frame (to crossmember 106b in fig. 1) and the expandable element is expanded against the structure to block flow of the vent byproducts through a gap that is between the frame and the structure (see filling gaps and contacting opposing surfaces—and, thus, expanding against structure such as side wall 102 to fill gap between side wall and crossmember in fig. 1—to protect from/cut off heat in ¶ 0006, 0010, and 0011), wherein the structure is a wall of an enclosure (side wall 102, fig. 1), wherein the expandable element is foam (¶ 0008).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 6–10, 15, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 20230097771 A1) (Han).
Regarding claim 1, Han discloses a thermal barrier assembly (fig. 8) for a traction battery pack (see EV pack, ¶ 0004), comprising (per fig. 8) a frame (82) extending longitudinally along an axis (per fig.).
Han further discloses fire resistant member 84 fixed to frame 82 (fig. 8), where the fire resistant member may be many different materials, including flame-retardant members like fibrous insulators such as ceramic wool or glass fiber, rubber materials including ceramics with thermal-barrier properties, or rubber material containing expandable graphite to rapidly expand to form an insulating layer on exposure to heat (¶ 0086, 0087). Such would yield an expandable element configured to expand against a structure (against upper plate/cover 53 in fig. 8) in response to a battery cell venting event (i.e., exposure to heat; see also event of ignition in battery cell in ¶ 0099). Further, absent a special definition of “gap”, such appears to include any separation or distance between the frame and structure—i.e., the separation defined by fire resistant member 84 in Han’s fig. 8 (which appears further supported by the recognition of a “gap” in Han’s ¶ 0089). Thus, such would further yield the ability to block vent byproducts from flowing through a “gap” between the structure and the frame given that the fire resistant member is part of blocking member 80 so that vent byproducts would be blocked from flowing across the “gap” upon a venting event (see Han’s ¶ 0021, 0086).
Although Han may fail to disclose rubber containing expandable graphite as the fire resistant member—and, thus, an expandable element—with sufficient specificity from the broader list of potential fire resistant members, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely select a rubber material containing expandable graphite as the fire resistant member—and, thus, an expandable element—from Han’s finite list of alternatives with the reasonable expectation of achieving adequate insulation and heat/byproduct blocking.
Regarding claim 3, Han discloses the thermal barrier assembly of claim 1, wherein the frame is a polymer-based material (see resin in ¶ 0078).
Assuming, arguendo, that “resin” were not sufficiently specific to read on “polymer-based material”, Examiner submits that the skilled artisan would have readily envisaged a “polymer-based material” from Han’s “resin” because Han discloses that the frame should be formed of a rigid material (¶ 0078), and synthetic resins are ubiquitous in the art for providing rigidity. It would have been obvious to select a synthetic polymer as Han’s resin with the reasonable expectation of providing the desired rigidity.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Han discloses the thermal barrier assembly of claim 1, wherein the structure is an enclosure wall and is an enclosure cover (upper plate 53 covering interior space in fig. 8).
Regarding claims 8–10, Han discloses the thermal barrier assembly of claim 1, wherein the expandable element is configured to expand to redirect a flow of vent byproducts emitted from at least one battery cell within a first array from flowing over an array terminal of a second array (by blocking propagation between cell stacks/arrays 10a and 10b and between respectively accompanying terminals 11 (see also ¶ 0035–0039)—i.e., terminal arrays—via blocking member 80 including fire resistant/expandable member 84, ¶ 0021 and 0073), the frame and the expandable element disposed between the first array and the second array (fig. 8),
wherein (per fig. 8) the expandable element is secured to a first side of the frame that faces the first array (left side facing cell stack 10a), a second side of the frame that faces the second array (right side facing cell stack 10b), and a third side of the frame that faces the structure (top side facing upper wall/cover 53), wherein the frame is secured to a cross-member that is between the first array and the second array (see fastening of frame to partition member 60 in fig. 8, where, per fig. 2, the partition member separates the cell stacks/arrays by spanning longitudinally along the pack case and, thus, constitutes a crossmember).
Regarding claim 15, Han discloses a method of shielding areas within a traction battery pack (e.g., fig. 8).
Han discloses fire resistant member 84 fixed to frame 82 as part of blocking member 80 (fig. 8), where the fire resistant member may be may be many different materials, including flame-retardant members like fibrous insulators such as ceramic wool or glass fiber, rubber materials including ceramics with thermal-barrier properties, or rubber material containing expandable graphite to rapidly expand to form an insulating layer on exposure to heat (¶ 0086, 0087). Such would yield an expandable element that expands against a structure (against upper plate/cover 53 in fig. 8) within a traction battery pack (see EV pack, ¶ 0004) in response to a battery cell venting event (i.e., exposure to heat; see also event of ignition in battery cell in ¶ 0099).
Although Han may fail to disclose rubber containing expandable graphite as the fire resistant member—and, thus, an expandable element—with sufficient specificity from the broader list of potential fire resistant members, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely select a rubber material containing expandable graphite as the fire resistant member—and, thus, an expandable element—from Han’s finite list of alternatives with the reasonable expectation of achieving adequate insulation and heat/byproduct blocking.
Regarding claim 16, Han discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the expandable element is secured to a frame (to frame 82 in fig. 8) and the expandable element is expanded against the structure (against upper wall 53). Further, absent a special definition of “gap”, such appears to include any separation or distance between the frame and structure—i.e., the separation defined by fire resistant member 84 in fig. 8 (which appears further supported by the recognition of a “gap” in ¶ 0089). Thus, such would further yield the ability to block vent byproducts from flowing through a “gap” between the structure and the frame given that the fire resistant member is part of blocking member 80 so that vent byproducts would be blocked from flowing across the “gap” upon a venting event (see ¶ 0021, 0086).
Regarding claim 18, Han discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the structure is a wall of an enclosure (upper wall 53 covering interior space in fig. 8).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 20230097771 A1) (Han), as applied to claim 1, in view of Ok et al. (KR 20230039124 A, with mach. translation) (Ok).
Regarding claim 2, Han discloses the thermal barrier assembly of claim 1.
Han further discloses that the frame may have a polygonal cross-section (¶ 0077), yet, while disclosing that the disclosure is not limited to such and may be modified as long as the frame may be disposed on the partition member 60 (¶ 0077), Han fails to disclose an H-shaped axial cross-section.
Ok teaches an analogous battery module with a heat-blocking structure (Abstract, see also firewall 30 in fig. 3). Ok teaches a bulkhead 320 as a supporting frame for coupling to heat-blocking partitions 310 and 320 (fig. 3, ¶ 0038 and 0039). As seen in ¶ 0043 and fig. 3, the bulkhead is a polygonal shape including an H-shaped axial cross section formed by flanges 321 and 323 extending horizontally and is secured to other parts of the module housing (fig. 3). Ok teaches that the flanges forming the H-shaped cross section have a wide contact interface with the module housing so that it is easy to secure an area for bolting, bonding, or welding, and the flanges support the housing over a wide range so that the bulkhead improves the housing’s impact resistance (¶ 0044).
As Han appears amenable to including different polygonal cross sections in the frame, while Ok recognizes a frame with an H-shaped axial cross section as suitable for supporting a heat-blocking structure as well as coupling to and supporting the module housing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Han’s frame into Ok’s H-shaped axial cross section by adopting Ok’s bulkhead with laterally extending flanges as an equivalent design choice with the reasonable expectation of maintaining successful coupling to/support of Han’s fire resistant member while also supporting the housing over a wide range to improve the housing’s impact resistance, as taught by Ok.
Claim(s) 4 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 20230097771 A1) (Han), as applied to claim 1, in view of Feltham et al. (US 20230033505 A1) (Feltham).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Han discloses the thermal barrier assembly of claim 1 and the method of claim 15.
Han further discloses that the fire resistant member may be rubber (¶ 0087), as well as the ability to include intumescent materials (like expandable graphite above), though Han fails to explicitly disclose that the expandable element is a foam.
Feltham teaches an analogous battery pack including intumescent material 108 such as foam lining crossmembers 106 separating battery bays/modules 104 (fig. 1, ¶ 0008). Feltham teaches that the intumescent material may expand upon heat exposure to fill gaps between the bays and/or enclosure to protect the healthy bays from heat propagation/byproducts like gases (¶ 0006, 0010, 0011).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adopt Feltham’s foam as Han’s intumescent material with the reasonable expectation of achieving sufficient thermal insulation, as taught by Feltham.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 20230097771 A1) (Han), as applied to claim 1, in view of Feltham et al. (US 20230033505 A1) (Feltham), as applied to claim 4, further in view of Chen et al. (US 20240178517 A1) (Chen).
Regarding claim 5, modified Han discloses the thermal barrier assembly of claim 4.
Han discloses that the fire resistant member may include inorganic binders such as mica as well as be in the form of a sheet (¶ 0086), though Han fails to explicitly disclose a mica shield sandwiched between the foam and the frame.
Chen teaches an analogous heat insulation pad 13 used to block heat transfer between battery cells (¶ 0071). Chen teaches that the pad may be made of single or composite materials, including a mica plate, foam or aerogel, or a mica plate of a sandwich structure (¶ 0071).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adopt a mica sandwich plate as a composite alongside modified Han’s intumescent foam as the fire resistant member/expandable element with the reasonable expectation of achieving adequate thermal insulation, as taught by Chen.
Further, arguendo, if Chen’s “sandwich plate” were not sufficiently specific to render obvious the “mica shield sandwiched between the foam and frame”, the skilled artisan would understand that only two configurations would be possible when applying Chen’s mica plate as a “sandwich” alongside the foam to Han’s frame: the mica plate/shield could either be between the frame and foam or could be outside the foam. Further, Examiner submits that the skilled artisan would have preferentially pursued the former option to avoid interfering with the foam’s intumescence to block the surrounding gap/space.
It would have been obvious to routinely pursue a mica shield between the frame and foam with the reasonable expectation of achieving sufficient heat blockage without disrupting the foam’s intumescence as one of two possible configurations recognized in the art (MPEP 2143 (E.)).
Claim(s) 11, 12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 20230097771 A1) (Han), as applied to claim 1, in view of Mills et al. (WO 2023237234 A1) (Mills).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Han discloses the thermal barrier assembly of claim 1.
Han, as seen above, is generally concerned with safely venting battery gas to the outside without damaging healthy cells (e.g., ¶ 0066, 0067) and discloses venting hole 55 proximate to blocking member 80 with frame 82 and expandable element 84 for discharging the gas (fig. 1, ¶ 0067 and 0070). However, Han fails to explicitly disclose that the assembly further comprises a biasing member and a sealing assembly, the biasing member configured to bias the sealing assembly against the structure, wherein the sealing assembly includes a sealing element held within a tray, the biasing member biasing the tray and the sealing element against the structure.
Mills teaches an analogous venting valve for battery ventilation (e.g., Abstract, ¶ 0002 and 0006). Mills teaches that the valve includes a sealing assembly as a seal 330 held within a groove as a “tray” (fig. 4), and biasing member 320 can bias the seal indirectly against enclosure 374 (figs. 4–6), which is, e.g., a battery pack casing (¶ 0006). Mills teaches that, in the sealed/biased configuration, vented gases are prevented from escaping (fig. 5), whereas, in the open/unbiased configuration, the gases can vent to the surroundings (fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Mills’s valve as or as part of Han’s venting hole with the reasonable expectation of successfully blocking or venting the gases as desired, as taught by Mills.
Thus, modified Han would disclose that the assembly further comprises a biasing member (Mills’s biasing member) and a sealing assembly (Mills’s seal plus groove), the biasing member configured to bias the sealing assembly against the structure (indirectly against Han’s cover, as in indirect biasing in Mills, e.g., fig. 4), wherein the sealing assembly includes a sealing element held within a tray (Mills’s seal held within a groove—which, in including a depth and side walls and retaining/supporting the seal (see Mills’s fig. 4), is reasonably considered a “tray” without special definition—the biasing member biasing the tray and the sealing element against the structure (again, biasing member would bias seal plus groove indirectly against Han’s cover, as against Mills’s enclosure).
Regarding claim 17, Han discloses the method of claim 15.
Han, as seen above, is generally concerned with safely venting battery gas to the outside without damaging healthy cells (e.g., ¶ 0066, 0067) and discloses venting hole 55 proximate to blocking member 80 with frame 82 and expandable element 84 for discharging the gas (fig. 1, ¶ 0067 and 0070). However, Han fails to explicitly disclose biasing a sealing element away from the frame and against the structure.
Mills teaches an analogous venting valve for battery ventilation (e.g., Abstract, ¶ 0002 and 0006). Mills teaches that the valve includes seal 330 (fig. 4), and biasing member 320 can bias the seal indirectly against enclosure 374 (figs. 4–6), which is, e.g., a battery pack casing (¶ 0006). Mills teaches that, in the sealed/biased configuration, vented gases are prevented from escaping (fig. 5), whereas, in the open/unbiased configuration, the gases can vent to the surroundings (fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Mills’s valve as or as part of Han’s venting hole with the reasonable expectation of successfully blocking or venting the gases as desired, as taught by Mills.
Thus, modified Han would disclose or render obvious biasing a sealing element (Mills’s seal 330) away from the frame (longitudinally away when incorporated into Han’s battery pack) and against the structure (indirectly against Han’s cover, as in indirect biasing against Mills’s enclosure).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
The present invention relates to, inter alia, a thermal barrier assembly comprising a frame and an expandable element secured to the frame and configured to expand against a structure in response to a battery cell venting event, as well as a biasing member and a sealing assembly, the biasing member configured to bias the sealing assembly against the structure, wherein the sealing assembly includes a sealing element held within a tray, the biasing member biasing the tray and the sealing element against the structure, wherein
(claim 13) the biasing member, the tray, and the sealing element are each at least partially received within a channel of the frame.
Han et al. (US 20230097771 A1) (Han) in view of Mills et al. (WO 2023237234 A1) (Mills), in disclosing most of the limitations as set forth above, is considered the closest prior art to claim 13.
However, modified Han fails to disclose or suggest that the biasing member, the tray, and the sealing element are each at least partially received within a channel of the frame.
In general, as seen above, the sealing arrangement including the biasing member, tray, and sealing element is known in the art. Again, Mills teaches a venting valve for battery ventilation (e.g., Abstract, ¶ 0002 and 0006), the valve including a sealing assembly as a seal 330 held within a groove as a “tray” (fig. 4), where biasing member 320 can bias the seal indirectly against enclosure 374 (figs. 4–6), e.g., a battery pack casing (¶ 0006).
However, what seems nonobvious is the positioning of this arrangement within a channel of the frame. Rather, as alluded to above, when modifying Han with Mills’s valve, the skilled artisan would understand to only position the valve—with biasing member and sealing assembly—within Han’s venting hole 55 or a similar position on Han’s sidewall 51 (fig. 1)—as in Mills’s fig. 4—not within any aperture or “channel” of Han’s frame 82 without risking disrupting Han’s mechanical connection of the frame to cover 53 via fastener 90 (see Han’s fig. 8). Thus, there appears to be no reason or even ability for the skilled artisan to arrive at “the biasing member, the tray, and the sealing element are each at least partially received within a channel of the frame”.
Further, even considering Mills as a primary reference, Mills is clearly only concerned with the valve structure to enable gas venting while also allowing leakage checking (e.g., ¶ 0109, 0111) and nowhere appears concerned with isolating an infected cell from healthy ones or any similar problem as Han. Thus, there appears to be no reason for the skilled artisan to incorporate Han’s frame and blocking member into Mills’s structure, as in claim 1. Further, such would still fail to achieve claim 13’s structure for the reasons above.
Feltham et al. (US 20230033505 A1) is prior art also relevant to claim 13. Feltham, as detailed above, discloses a battery pack including an expandable element (intumescent material 108 such as foam lining crossmembers 106 separating battery bays/modules 104 (fig. 1, ¶ 0008)), where the intumescent material may expand upon heat exposure to fill gaps between the bays and/or enclosure to protect the healthy bays from heat propagation/byproducts like gases (¶ 0006, 0010, 0011). Moreover, Feltham discloses the ability to include a deformable valve within a sealed module bay for venting (¶ 0013).
However, Feltham never appears to disclose any kind of biasing member separate from the crossmember that would bias a sealing assembly against a structure such as the enclosure cover in fig. 1, much less a distinct “tray” for receiving a sealing element, both of which are biased against the structure, and, more importantly, even if one skilled in the art consulted other sources such as Mills to incorporate the valve with the biasing member, tray, and sealing member, such would still encounter the issue that the skilled artisan would understand to position the valve at or proximate to one of Feltham’s venting openings in the sidewalls of the enclosure (see embedding venting structure in sidewalls in ¶ 0037 and 0039), not within any opening or “channel” within the “frame” (given cross member 108/208/308).
Although Feltham discloses the ability to include apertures within the “frame” (see openings in cross members, fig. 5), such is only to accommodate coolant tubes and create a drain path for fluid (¶ 0011). Thus, there appears to be no reason for the skilled artisan to pursue or arrive at the biasing member, the tray, and the sealing element are each at least partially received within a channel of the frame.
In contrast, Applicant specifically positions the biasing member, tray, and sealing member in a channel in the middle of the frame’s cross section (fig. 7) and biases the sealing assembly to press sealant against the structure (enclosure wall) to ensure that any gap is blocked during venting for further insulation (¶ 0056), i.e., to account for any byproducts that the expandable element fails to block. The prior art could not have predicted such effects from the recited configuration.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.
Conclusion
The cited art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
WO 2023200303 A1 (with English counterpart US 20240304941 A1): battery module case with expansion member that inflates upon heat exposure to block flames and heat.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 8/5/2026
Prosecution Insights