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 .
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on 07/27/2026 claims 1-20 are pending. Independent claims 1, 14, and 18 were amended by adding limitations not previously presented.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues in pages 7-8 of the Remarks dated 07/27/2026 that the cited aperture 24 of Parsons does not equates to the claimed opening 214 as illustrated by the applicant in Figs. 2A-2B. Specifically, the applicant argues that Parsons does not disclose that the base structure interfaces with the incoming cable conduit 50 via the aperture 24. The applicant states that “the aperture 24 is the bore through the upwardly extending neck of the structure, dimensioned to permit the charging cable to pass upward toward the electric vehicle charger. The incoming cable conduit 50, by contrast, enters the base from below, underground. The incoming cable therefore does not interface with he base through the aperture 24. The upwardly extending neck and the underground conduit entry are separate features at separate locations”. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the physical location of the openings on the pedestal base and the installation environment of the pedestal frame such as above or below ground) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In pages 8-9 of the Remarks, the applicant amended the independent claims to advance prosecution. The applicant introduced the following new limitations “a plurality of lateral openings”, “a plurality of base plates, each base plate being removably attached to the skid base to cover a respective lateral opening of the plurality of lateral openings that is not interfaced with the CMS”, and “a cover removably attachable to the skid base”. The applicant argues that the newly added limitations are not disclosed by Parsons and Flynn either individually or in combination. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Flynn with reference to Figs. 2-4 and ¶[18] discloses “a plurality of lateral openings” and “a plurality of base plates, each base plate being removably attached to the skid base to cover a respective lateral opening of the plurality of lateral openings that is not interfaced with the CMS”. Specifically, Flynn teaches a plurality of side panels 26 which are laterally placed along the sides of the platform 10 wherein the side panels 26 are attached to the platform 10 by screw or the side panels 26 are provided with circular knockouts which may be removed thus allowing electrical conduits to be received. Parsons with reference to Fig. 1 teaches “a cover removably attachable to the skid base”. Thus, Parsons and Flynn teach the amended limitations as claimed and cited below.
The remaining arguments are moot as the applicant’s arguments for the remaining claims were based on dependency of the independent claims.
This Office Action is made Final due to the amendments.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parsons et al. (USPGPN 20250038509) and further in view of Flynn et al. (USPGPN 20210245614; identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) and cited in the International Search Report (ISR)).
With respect to independent claims 1 and 18, Parsons teaches a pedestal base (Fig. 1; an electric vehicle charging foundation system 10) comprising a skid base defining an opening (Fig. 1; a base structure 12 defining an aperture 24), the skid base configured to interface with a cable conduit via the opening (Fig. 2; the base structure 12 configured to interface with a cable conduit 50 via the aperture 24).
Parsons teaches a cover removably attachable to the skid base and configured to mechanically interface with an electric vehicle (EV) charger (Fig. 1; an electric vehicle charger adapter plate 26 (i.e., a cover) removably attachable to the base structure 12 and configured to mechanically interface with an EV charger (not illustrated)).
Parsons teaches the skid base and the cover define a volume (Fig. 1; the base structure 12 and the adapter plate 26 define a volume).
Parsons teaches the skid base and the cover, when mechanically attached, permit a cable to extend between the cable conduit and the EV charger and to extend through the opening and the volume (Figs. 1-2; a cable extends through the opening and the volume between the cable conduit 50 and the EV charger when the base structure 12 and the adapter plate 26 are mechanically interfaced, see ¶[55] and ¶[57]).
However, Parsons fails to explicitly teach a cable management system (CMS); a plurality of base plates, each base plate being removably attachable to the skid base to cover a respective lateral opening of the plurality of lateral openings that is not interfaced with the CMS; and a plurality of lateral openings.
Flynn teaches a cable management system (CMS) (Fig. 1; cable blocks 16).
Flynn teaches a plurality of base plates (Figs. 2-4; a plurality of side panels 26), each base plate being removably attachable to the skid base to cover a respective lateral opening of the plurality of lateral openings that is not interfaced with the CMS (Figs. 2-4; ¶[18]; a plurality of side panels 26 which are laterally placed along the sides of the platform 10 wherein the side panels 26 are attached to the platform 10 by screw or the side panels 26 are provided with circular knockouts which may be removed thus allowing electrical conduits to be received).
Flynn teaches a plurality of lateral openings (Figs. 2-4; the openings when the side panels 26 are removed).
A base plate for a charging station with multiple lateral (side) openings for cables is designed primarily for flexibility, safety, and clean cable management. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have adapted Flynn’s cable management system to Parsons’ electric vehicle charging foundation system. The advantage of this being a rapidly deployable EV charging system with variable number of charging stations depending on system requirements with a system of electrical cable blocks with may be assembled together to secure and protect electrical wires (see ¶[14] of Flynn).
With respect to dependent claim 2, Parsons teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Parsons teaches wherein the cover defines a mechanical interface configured to permit the cover and the EV charger to mechanically interface (Fig. 1; adapter plate 26 defines a plurality of mounting points 34 configured to permit the adapter plate 26 and the EV charger to mechanically interface).
With respect to dependent claim 3, Parsons teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 2. Further, Parsons teaches a fastener configured to mechanically interface with the mechanical interface and the EV charger to mechanically couple the EV charger to a surface of the cover (Not illustrated however one of ordinary skill understands a fastener is configured to mechanically interface with the plurality of mounting points 34 and the EV charger to mechanically couple the EV charger to a surface of the adapter plate 26).
With respect to dependent claim 4, Parsons teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Parsons fails to explicitly teach an overcurrent device box configured to mechanically interface with the cover, the overcurrent device box comprising an overcurrent device configured to electrically couple to the EV charger and the cable.
Flynn teaches comprising an overcurrent device box configured to mechanically interface with the cover, the overcurrent device box comprising an overcurrent device configured to electrically couple to the EV charger and the cable (¶[14]; “The other electrical components that may be placed on the platform include, but are not limited to, energy storage systems (e.g., batteries, inverters), electrical distribution equipment (e.g., breakers, switches), and cellular communication components/equipment.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Flynn’s cable management system to Parsons’ electric vehicle charging foundation system. The advantage of this being a rapidly deployable EV charging system with variable number of charging stations depending on system requirements with a system of electrical cable blocks with may be assembled together to secure and protect electrical wires (see ¶[14] of Flynn).
With respect to dependent claim 5, Parsons teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 4. However, Parsons fails to explicitly teach wherein the overcurrent device comprises one or more of a circuit breaker or a fuse holder.
Flynn teaches wherein the overcurrent device comprises one or more of a circuit breaker or a fuse holder (¶[14]; breaker).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Flynn’s cable management system to Parsons’ electric vehicle charging foundation system. The advantage of this being a rapidly deployable EV charging system with variable number of charging stations depending on system requirements with a system of electrical cable blocks with may be assembled together to secure and protect electrical wires (see ¶[14] of Flynn).
With respect to dependent claim 6, Parsons teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 4. However, Parsons fails to explicitly teach wherein the overcurrent device is configured to transition between an open configuration and a closed configuration, wherein in the open configuration, the overcurrent device is configured to electrically isolate the EV charger from the cable, and in the closed configuration, the overcurrent device is configured to electrically couple the EV charger to the cable.
Flynn teaches wherein the overcurrent device is configured to transition between an open configuration and a closed configuration, wherein in the open configuration, the overcurrent device is configured to electrically isolate the EV charger from the cable, and in the closed configuration, the overcurrent device is configured to electrically couple the EV charger to the cable (One of ordinary skill understands that when a breaker operates to open the circuit it could disconnect the EV charger from the cable or when the breaker operates to close the circuit it could electrically couple the EV charger to the cable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Flynn’s cable management system to Parsons’ electric vehicle charging foundation system. The advantage of this being a rapidly deployable EV charging system with variable number of charging stations depending on system requirements with a system of electrical cable blocks with may be assembled together to secure and protect electrical wires (see ¶[14] of Flynn).
With respect to dependent claim 7, Parsons teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Parsons fails to explicitly teach wherein the skid base is configured to mechanically interface with the CMS comprising a raceway comprising a base with a cover portion coupled to the base that forms one or more channels to receive the cable.
Flynn teaches wherein the skid base is configured to mechanically interface with the CMS (Fig. 1; the EV platform 10 is configured to mechanically interface with the cable block 16).
Flynn teaches the CMS comprising a raceway comprising a base with a cover portion coupled to the base that forms one or more channels to receive the cable (Figs. 5-6; the cable block 16 comprising a flat base 40 with a top plate 48 coupled to the flat base 40 that forms a main channel to receive the cable (not illustrated)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Flynn’s cable management system to Parsons’ electric vehicle charging foundation system. The advantage of this being a rapidly deployable EV charging system with variable number of charging stations depending on system requirements with a system of electrical cable blocks with may be assembled together to secure and protect electrical wires (see ¶[14] of Flynn).
With respect to dependent claim 8, Parson teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Parson fails to explicitly teach wherein the one of the lateral openings is configured to encase a portion of the CMS.
Flynn teaches wherein the one of the lateral openings is configured to encase a portion of the CMS (Figs. 1-4; the opening 22 is configured to encase a portion of the cable block 16 (e.g., via removable panel 28)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Flynn’s cable management system to Parsons’ electric vehicle charging foundation system. The advantage of this being a rapidly deployable EV charging system with variable number of charging stations depending on system requirements with a system of electrical cable blocks with may be assembled together to secure and protect electrical wires (see ¶[14] of Flynn).
With respect to dependent claim 9, Parsons teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Parsons fails to explicitly teach wherein the skid base is configured to mechanically interface with the CMS to permit the skid base and the CMS to be installed above-ground and the CMS to function as an above-ground wiring run.
Flynn teaches wherein the skid base is configured to mechanically interface with the CMS to permit the skid base and the CMS to be installed above-ground and the CMS to function as an above-ground wiring run (Fig. 1; the EV platform 10 is configured to mechanically interface with the electrical block 16 to permit the platform 10 and the electrical block 16 to be installed above-ground and the electrical block 16 to function as an above-ground wiring run, see ¶[29]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Flynn’s cable management system to Parsons’ electric vehicle charging foundation system. The advantage of this being a rapidly deployable EV charging system with variable number of charging stations depending on system requirements with a system of electrical cable blocks with may be assembled together to secure and protect electrical wires (see ¶[14] of Flynn).
With respect to dependent claim 10, Parsons teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Parsons teaches comprising a fastener configured to mechanically couple the cover to the skid base (Fig. 1; a fastener (not illustrated) configured to mechanically couple the adapter plate 26 to the base structure 12).
With respect to dependent claim 11, Parsons teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Parsons teaches wherein the cover is configured to mechanically interface with the EV charger comprising a pedestal (The EV charger is not illustrated however it is well known by one of ordinary skill in the art that an EV charger has a pedestal to anchor it to a surface and to protect cables).
With respect to dependent claim 12, Parsons teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Parsons teaches wherein the cover defines a plurality of mechanical interfaces and is configured to mechanically interface with a plurality of EV chargers having different mechanical interfaces, each complementary to a different one of the plurality of mechanical interfaces (¶[89]; “The provision of a modular electric vehicle charging foundation system comprising a base structure, a raising frame, and a plurality of different adapter plates enables the selective alteration of an installation site to suit a new electric vehicle charger to be installed, thus creating a true modular electric vehicle charging system”).
With respect to dependent claim 13, Parsons teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Parsons fails to explicitly teach the CMS comprises a first CMS; the cable comprises a first cable; and the skid base is configured to interface with a second CMS via another lateral opening of the plurality of lateral openings, wherein the skid base permits a second cable to extend between the first CMS and the second CMS.
Flynn teaches the CMS comprises a first CMS; the cable comprises a first cable; and the skid base is configured to interface with a second CMS via another opening of the plurality of lateral openings, wherein the skid base permits a second cable to extend between the first CMS and the second CMS (¶[15-18]; the portable platform 10 may have different electrical blocks 16 attaching to the platform 10 thereby routing cables in multiple directions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Flynn’s cable management system to Parsons’ electric vehicle charging foundation system. The advantage of this being a rapidly deployable EV charging system with variable number of charging stations depending on system requirements with a system of electrical cable blocks with may be assembled together to secure and protect electrical wires (see ¶[14] of Flynn).
With respect to independent claim 14, Parsons teaches a pedestal base comprising a plurality of covers, each cover of the plurality of covers comprising a different mechanical interface configured to permit a different electric vehicle (EV) charger to be attached to a surface of a corresponding cover of the plurality of covers (¶[89]; “The provision of a modular electric vehicle charging foundation system comprising a base structure, a raising frame, and a plurality of different adapter plates enables the selective alteration of an installation site to suit a new electric vehicle charger to be installed, thus creating a true modular electric vehicle charging system”).
Parsons teaches a skid base defining an opening (Fig. 1; a base structure 12 defining an aperture 24), the skid base configured to interface with a cable conduit via the opening (Fig. 2; the base structure 12 configured to interface with a cable conduit 50 via the aperture 24).
Parsons teaches each cover of the plurality of covers configured to mechanically interface with the skid base (Fig. 1; ¶[89]; each adapter plate 26 configuration is configured to mechanically interface with the base structure 12).
Parsons teaches the skid base and each cover of the plurality of covers, when mechanically interfaced, define a volume (Fig. 1; the base structure 12 and each configuration of the adapter plate 26 define a volume).
Parsons teaches the skid base and each cover of the plurality of covers, when mechanically interfaced, permit a cable to extend between the cable conduit and the EV charger and to extend through the opening and the volume (Figs. 1-2; a cable extends through the opening and the volume between the cable conduit 50 and the EV charger when the base structure 12 and each configuration of the adapter plate 26 are mechanically interfaced, see ¶[55] and ¶[57]).
However, Parsons fails to explicitly teach a cable management system (CMS); a plurality of base plates, each base plate being removably attachable to the skid base to cover a respective lateral opening of the plurality of lateral openings that is not interfaced with the CMS; and a plurality of lateral openings.
Flynn teaches a cable management system (CMS) (Fig. 1; cable blocks 16).
Flynn teaches a plurality of base plates (Figs. 2-4; a plurality of side panels 26), each base plate being removably attachable to the skid base to cover a respective lateral opening of the plurality of lateral openings that is not interfaced with the CMS (Figs. 2-4; ¶[18]; a plurality of side panels 26 which are laterally placed along the sides of the platform 10 wherein the side panels 26 are attached to the platform 10 by screw or the side panels 26 are provided with circular knockouts which may be removed thus allowing electrical conduits to be received).
Flynn teaches a plurality of lateral openings (Figs. 2-4; the openings when the side panels 26 are removed).
A base plate for a charging station with multiple lateral (side) openings for cables is designed primarily for flexibility, safety, and clean cable management. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have adapted Flynn’s cable management system to Parsons’ electric vehicle charging foundation system. The advantage of this being a rapidly deployable EV charging system with variable number of charging stations depending on system requirements with a system of electrical cable blocks with may be assembled together to secure and protect electrical wires (see ¶[14] of Flynn).
With respect to dependent claim 15, Parsons teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 14. Further, Parsons teaches configured to mechanically interface with each cover of the plurality of covers (¶[89]).
However, Parsons fails to explicitly teach comprising an overcurrent device box, the overcurrent device box defining a second volume and comprising an overcurrent device configured to electrically couple to the EV charger and the cable.
Flynn teaches comprising an overcurrent device box, the overcurrent device box defining a second volume and comprising an overcurrent device configured to electrically couple to the EV charger and the cable (¶[14]; “The other electrical components that may be placed on the platform include, but are not limited to, energy storage systems (e.g., batteries, inverters), electrical distribution equipment (e.g., breakers, switches), and cellular communication components/equipment.” One of ordinary skill understands the electrical distribution equipment device defines a second volume).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Flynn’s cable management system to Parsons’ electric vehicle charging foundation system. The advantage of this being a rapidly deployable EV charging system with variable number of charging stations depending on system requirements with a system of electrical cable blocks with may be assembled together to secure and protect electrical wires (see ¶[14] of Flynn).
With respect to dependent claim 16, Parsons teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 14. However, Parsons fails to explicitly teach wherein the skid base is configured to interface with the CMS to permit the skid base and the CMS to be installed above-ground and the CMS to function as an above-ground wiring run.
Flynn teaches wherein the skid base is configured to interface with the CMS to permit the skid base and the CMS to be installed above-ground and the CMS to function as an above-ground wiring run (Fig. 1; the EV platform 10 is configured to mechanically interface with the electrical block 16 to permit the platform 10 and the electrical block 16 to be installed above-ground and the electrical block 16 to function as an above-ground wiring run, see ¶[29]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Flynn’s cable management system to Parsons’ electric vehicle charging foundation system. The advantage of this being a rapidly deployable EV charging system with variable number of charging stations depending on system requirements with a system of electrical cable blocks with may be assembled together to secure and protect electrical wires (see ¶[14] of Flynn).
With respect to dependent claim 17, Parsons teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 14. Further, Parsons teaches wherein each cover of the plurality of covers is configured to mechanically interface with a different EV charger with a built-in pedestal (The EV charger is not illustrated however it is well known by one of ordinary skill in the art that an EV charger has a pedestal to anchor it to a surface and to protect cables and each different configuration of adapter for a different type of EV charger).
With respect to dependent claim 19, Parsons teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 18. However, Parsons fails to explicitly teach disposing an overcurrent device within a second volume defined by an overcurrent device box.
Flynn teaches disposing an overcurrent device within a second volume defined by an overcurrent device box (¶[14]; one of ordinary skill understands the electrical distribution equipment defines a volume within an enclosure).
Flynn teaches attaching the overcurrent device box to the cover, wherein extending the cable between the CMS and the EV charger comprises
electrically coupling the EV charger to the overcurrent device and electrically coupling the cable to the overcurrent device (¶[14]; one of ordinary skill understands that by placing the electrical distribution equipment on the platform would extend the cable between the cable block and the EV charger thereby electrically coupling them).
Flynn teaches attaching the skid base to a ground surface to permit the skid base, the cover, and the CMS to be physically positioned above-ground and the CMS to function as an above-ground wiring run (Fig. 1; the EV platform 10 is configured to mechanically interface with the electrical block 16 to permit the platform 10 and the electrical block 16 to be installed above-ground and the electrical block 16 to function as an above-ground wiring run, see ¶[29]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Flynn’s cable management system to Parsons’ electric vehicle charging foundation system. The advantage of this being a rapidly deployable EV charging system with variable number of charging stations depending on system requirements with a system of electrical cable blocks with may be assembled together to secure and protect electrical wires (see ¶[14] of Flynn).
With respect to dependent claim 20, Parsons teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 19. However, Parsons fails to explicitly teach the overcurrent device box defining an access opening positioned proximate the overcurrent device, the method further comprising attaching an access plate to the overcurrent device box proximate the access opening.
Flynn teaches the overcurrent device box defining an access opening positioned proximate the overcurrent device, the method further comprising attaching an access plate to the overcurrent device box proximate the access opening (¶[14]; one of ordinary skill understands the electrical distribution equipment and the platform would require additional openings and plates in order to attach these to each other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Flynn’s cable management system to Parsons’ electric vehicle charging foundation system. The advantage of this being a rapidly deployable EV charging system with variable number of charging stations depending on system requirements with a system of electrical cable blocks with may be assembled together to secure and protect electrical wires (see ¶[14] of Flynn).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The additional prior art identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) were considered by the examiner, however, for examination purposes were not relied upon for citation purposes.
Molle (USPGPN 20200328604) describes a modular electric vehicle charging platform that can be installed underground and expanded later. It uses a universal base so charging cabinets from different manufacturers can be mounted and wired into the same overall system.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
