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
Claims 2 and 4-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2: duplicate limitation from claim 1 in “the charging module comprises at least a wired charging module and a wireless charging module;”. Remove it.
Claim 4: “the electricity acquisition power” and “the sum of the maximum charging powers” lack antecedent basis. Emend to “an electricity acquisition power”, “a sum of maximum charging powers”.
Claim 5: “the requirements for the charging power” and “the watch” lack antecedent basis. Emend to “requirements for a charging power” and “a watch”.
Claim 6: “the wired charging controller” [1st instance] lacks antecedent basis. Emend to “a wired charging controller”.
Claim 7: “the wireless charging controller” [1st instance] lacks antecedent basis. Emend to “a wireless charging controller”.
Claim 8:
“the output voltage” [1st instance] lacks antecedent basis. Emend to “an output voltage”.
“when voltage required for fast charging is lower than the output voltage of an input voltage management module, the fast charging protocol module comprises a buck circuit; when voltage required for fast charging is lower than, equal to, or higher than the output voltage of an input voltage management module, the fast charging protocol module comprises a boost circuit”
1st, this language does not make much sense, and it would make more sense instead of “comprises a buck circuit… comprises a boost circuit”, the applicant claims “is configured to use a buck circuit… is configured to use a boost circuit”
2nd, this language also appears off as the 1st clause has “is lower than”, and the 2nd clause has “is lower than, equal to, or higher than”, which does not appear proper. Emend to clarify the language.
For purposes of examination, it will be assumed the “is lower than” was not present in the statement with the boost circuit.
Claim 9: “the adapter circuit”, “the multi-in-one-charging base”, “the AC-DC conversion circuit”, “the adapter circuit”, “the adapter,”, “the working power required”, and “the AC-DC voltage regulator output” lack antecedent basis. Emend to “an adapter circuit”, “a multi-in-one-charging base”, “an AC-DC conversion circuit”, “an adapter circuit”, “an adapter,”, “a working power required”, and “an AC-DC voltage regulator output”.
Claim 10: “the all-in-one charging base” [1st instance], “the steady voltage required”, “the headphone”, “the wireless watch module”, and “the input DC voltage” lack antecedent basis. Emend to “an all-in-one charging base” [1st instance], “a steady voltage required”, “a headphone”, “a wireless watch module”, and “an input DC voltage”.
Claim 11: “the required voltage” [1st instance] lacks antecedent basis. Emend to “an input voltage” [1st instance].
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11824368. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they cover substantially similar scope (with the exception of a few different words here and there; instant application is presented on the left, patent on the right):
PNG
media_image1.png
558
1148
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1115
1148
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This application is broader than the patent in that there is more optional language. Therefore, it is rejected.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
Non-fast charging protocol module not clearly shown (of claims 1-11)
The method of claim 11 not shown (flowchart recommended)
Limitations of Claims 4 & 5 not clearly shown
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Dependent Claim 10 is dependent upon Claim 1. Claim 1 includes as optional the deception circuit (at least one of). The language of Claim 10 definitively seems to attempt to omit a claimed element in “excluding the deception circuit”. Omit this language to make the meaning of the claim language clear. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed this language has been omitted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yoo (USPGPN 20130278207) in view of Bao et al (CN 214013918 U; note, the ¶[#’s] are coming from the EPO translation Non-patent literature [NPL] attachment, while the abstract is coming from the other NPL attachment)
Independent Claim 1, Yoo discloses a fast charging device with multiple intelligent terminals (Figs. [1-8, esp. 1, 7, 8], ¶[05]), comprising
at least one of (noted to the applicant that as the applicant has only claimed at least one of, the claim limitations are optional besides one) an input power management circuit (810, 710 in Figs. [8, 7]), a deception circuit, a plurality of boost-buck management circuits (at least one in [840, 870, 875, 845] of Fig. 8, similar features in Fig. 7), and a plurality of charging modules ([850, 855, 860, 880, 890] of Fig. 8, [730, 740, 750, 760, 770] of Fig. 7);
the input power management circuits are externally connected with a charging head (plug from Fig. 1, ¶’s [55, 48]) and connected with the deception circuit (as noted above, this deception circuit is optional);
the deception circuit (as noted above, this circuit is optional) is connected with the plurality of boost-buck management circuits (as noted above, these circuits are optional; at least one in [840, 870, 875, 845] of Fig. 8, similar features in Fig. 7), respectively;
each of the boost-buck management circuits (as noted above, these circuits are optional) is connected with a corresponding charging module (see Figs. [8, 7]);
the charging module is externally connected with a terminal to be charged (see device of Figs. [1-6B], in addition to battery 70);
the charging module comprises a wired charging module and a wireless charging module (as described above, see Figs. [8, 7]);
the charging module further comprises at least a fast charging protocol module or a non-fast charging protocol module (both are either fast or non-fast, thus at least one is present); and
the terminal to be charged is selectively connected with the fast charging protocol module or the non-fast charging protocol module for charging as required (as only one of these protocol modules is required, it is met, with the switches/converters of Fig. 8 demonstrating the potential for the selectivity).
To advance prosecution, assuming the applicant amends to require the deception circuit as described in the applicant’s specification, Yoo is silent to the deception circuit.
Bao teaches a deception circuit (41 in Figs. [1-3], abstract, ¶’s [n0007-n0009, n0012, n0013, n0017, n0024, n0032, n0037, n0038, n0043, n0046, esp. n0007-n0009]) used with a charging circuit to charge an external device. Bao teaches the use of this decoy device serves to improve the convenience for the user (¶[n0008])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoo with Bao to provide improved convenience.
Dependent Claim 2, Yoo discloses the terminal to be charged comprises one or more of a mobile phone terminal (see Figs. [1-6B]), a watch terminal, and a headphone terminal;
the charging module comprises at least a wired charging module and a wireless charging module (see at least Figs. [8, 7]);
the charging module further comprises a controller; the controller comprises a wired charging controller and a wireless charging controller (830 controls both via control of the switches and converters, with the distinct output ports representing separate “controllers”);
the terminal to be charged is directly connected with the boost-buck management circuit for charging or connected with the boost-buck management circuit through the charging module for charging (as power from 860 can flow bidirectionally, it represents a buck and boost management operation when flowing through 870 & 875 & 845 & 840).
Dependent Claim 9, Yoo discloses the adapter circuit is combined with the multi-in-one charging base (as described ¶’s [48, 55], the adaptor is connected to [i.e. combined, definition by Merriam-Webster.com is to “act together”] with the multi-in-one charging base), and the fast charging protocol module is added into the AC-DC conversion circuit contained in the adapter (as the applicant has failed to describe context on what makes a circuit a fast charging vs non-fast charging, this feature is taught by the teaching of the AC-DC conversion, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands), and the working power required by the wireless module and the non-fast charging protocol module comes from the AC-DC voltage regulator output or the fast charging module output (see Figs. [8, 7]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo (USPGPN 20130278207) in view of Bao et al (CN 214013918 U; note, the ¶[#’s] are coming from the EPO translation Non-patent literature [NPL] attachment, while the abstract is coming from the other NPL attachment)
Dependent Claim 4, the combination of Yoo and Bao teaches discloses the input power management circuit supports PD protocol juice jacking, QC protocol juice jacking or both PD protocol juice jacking and QC protocol juice jacking (Bao teaches PD protocol juice jacking, as previously cited); and
the electricity acquisition power of the input power management circuit is greater than the sum of the maximum charging powers of the terminals to be charged (due to losses in the circuitry, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the amount of power input would be greater than the amount of power output;
noted that the applicant did not claim maximum chargeable power [capable/rated power], only maximum charging power [max power outputted by the system during operation]).
Dependent Claim 10, the combination of Yoo and Bao teaches excluding the deception circuit, wherein an output power supply of an adapter without the fast charging protocol is directly input into the all-in-one charging base, the boost-buck management circuit of the all-in-one charging base stabilizes input voltage at the steady voltage required by the headphone and the wireless watch module during operation (Yoo and Bao are capable of providing power to a headphone and a wireless watch, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands, with Bao teaching deception/decoy to adapt to a non-fast charging adaptor;
Housing/Base of Yoo and Bao represent this base;
Yoo shows both buck and boost circuit management to provide required power, ¶[05] in esp. Figs. [8, 7]); and
the input DC voltage directly supplies power to the fast charging module (as the applicant has not claimed a non-fast charging module is required, and has not given a limiting feature to distinguish such modules from the other, the charging features of Yoo and Bao qualify as a “fast charging module” since there is always a charging speed faster than another [or even than 0], with Yoo teaching bypass to directly supply power via the bypass switches).
Dependent Claim 6, the combination of Yoo and Bao teaches the wired charging module is composed of the wired charging controller, and a terminal access detection module, a charging control module and a fast charging protocol communication identification module respectively connected with the wired charging controller; and the terminal access detection module, the charging control module, and the fast charging protocol communication identification module are connected with an wired interface (as noted above for Claim 1, the applicant has made this circuit optional, thus, as Yoo teaches the alternative circuit, this further limitation is not required)
Dependent Claim 7, the combination of Yoo and Bao teaches wherein the wireless charging module is composed of the wireless charging controller, and a communication signal detection module, a wireless charging current detection module and a radio transmitting circuit connected with the wireless charging controller; the radio transmitting circuit is further connected with the communication signal detection module and the wireless charging current detection module; and the radio transmitting circuit is provided with a wireless charging coil (as noted above for Claim 1, the applicant has made this circuit optional, thus, as Yoo teaches the alternative circuit, this further limitation is not required).
Dependent Claim 8, the combination of Yoo and Bao teaches the fast charging protocol module is provided with a management circuit integrated with boost or buck, or boost and buck; when voltage required for fast charging is lower than the output voltage of an input voltage management module, the fast charging protocol module comprises a buck circuit; when voltage required for fast charging is lower than, equal to, or higher than the output voltage of an input voltage management module, the fast charging protocol module comprises a boost circuit; the buck circuit, the boost circuit, or the boost-buck management circuit appears independently or is integrated in a fast charging protocol identification chip (as noted above for Claim 1, the applicant has made this circuit optional, thus, as Yoo teaches the alternative circuit, this further limitation is not required;
Bao teaches identification/decoy circuitry, as described above for claim 1;
Yoo teaches both buck and boost circuitry, Yoo ¶’s [57, 58, 60, esp. 57]).
Dependent Claim 3, the combination of Yoo and Bao teaches the boost-buck management circuit comprises a DC-DC boost-buck management circuit of a watch terminal, a DC-DC boost-buck management circuit of a headphone terminal, and a DC-DC boost-buck circuit of a mobile phone terminal; the charging module comprises a watch wireless charging module, a mobile phone wired fast charging module, and a headphone wired charging module; the watch wireless charging module and the mobile phone wired fast charging module respectively comprise a watch wireless charging circuit and a mobile phone fast charging circuit; the boost-buck management circuit is capable of configuring an input voltage to the watch wireless module and the headphone wired charging module for power supply; the watch wireless charging module charges the watch terminal supporting wireless charging; the mobile phone wired fast charging module charges the mobile phone terminal in a wired mode; and the headphone wired module charges the headphone terminal in a wired mode (as noted above for Claim 1, the applicant has made this circuit optional, thus, as Yoo teaches the alternative circuit, this further limitation is not required;
Noted that Yoo and Bao’s circuitry are capable of powering a headphone and a watch in addition to the mobile phone shown, along with the wired and wireless power transfer shown in Yoo, as the applicant has not claimed a non-fast charging module is required, and has not given a limiting feature to distinguish such modules from the other, the charging features of Yoo and Bao qualify as a “fast charging module” since there is always a charging speed faster than another [or even than 0]).
Dependent Claim 5, the combination of Yoo and Bao teaches the headphone wired fast charging module is connected with the headphone terminal through a Type-C interface or a Lightning interface; the mobile phone wired fast charging module is connected with the mobile phone terminal through the Type-C interface or the Lightning interface, performs handshake with the mobile phone terminal through D+ and D− lines, a CC line, or a Vbus line to identify a fast charging protocol of a mobile phone, and adjusts output power to charge the mobile phone according to the requirements for the charging power of the mobile phone terminal; the watch wireless charging module charges the watch in a wireless mode; a processor, a DC-AC conversion circuit, a coil, and circuit induced current interact with a wireless charging watch terminal through one of amplitude shift keying (ASK), frequency-shift keying (FSK), phase shift keying (PSK), or quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM), to obtain information of the watch such as charging parameters and charging control (as noted above for Claim 1, the applicant has made this circuit optional, thus, as Yoo teaches the alternative circuit, this further limitation is not required to be met by the claims;
Yoo teaches USB circuitry in cited sections above, while Bao teaches the faster type-C interface ¶’s [n0011, n0012], naturally USB circuits perform handshaking along with the decoy/deception circuitry of Bao,
Yao teaches both wireless and wired circuitry capable of charging not only the phone shown, but also a watch and headphone, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands, where the coil 890 is described)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo in view of Bao, further in view of Ding et al (USPGPN 20200127482)
Dependent Claim 11, the combination of Yoo and Bao teaches a charging method of the fast charging device with multiple intelligent terminals according to claim 1 (as cited above),
when the input voltage is higher than the required voltage of the charging module, no boost is required (Yoo ¶’s [57, 58, 60, esp. 57] power flowing through 875),
high voltage obtained through deception (as described for Claim 1 with Bao), high voltage obtained input by a DC power supply (as described above for both Bao and Yoo).
Yao is silent to when an input voltage is lower than the required voltage of a charging module, a management mode of buck before boost is adopted; high voltage obtained power supply is stabilized in an accepted voltage of a watch charging module and a headphone charging module during normal operation through a buck circuit, a boost circuit boosts up and stabilizes a low voltage output by the buck circuit in an accepted voltage of the watch charging module and the headphone charging module during operation.
Ding teaches when an input voltage is lower than the required voltage of a charging module, a management mode of buck before boost is adopted (¶’s [35, 39-41, 44-48, 50, 56], as shown in Fig. 3, there is a buck circuit before the buck/boost circuit);
high voltage obtained power supply is stabilized in an accepted voltage of a watch charging module and a headphone charging module (¶[23], see Figs. [1-5A, 6]) during normal operation through a buck circuit, a boost circuit boosts up and stabilizes a low voltage output by the buck circuit in an accepted voltage of the watch charging module and the headphone charging module during operation (as described above, the power follows this path; as noted, the power supplied to the loads can be one or more of the watch and headphone claimed). Ding teaches this structure/method serves to improve the efficiency (¶’s [04, 35, 36, 48, 58])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoo in view of Bao with Ding to provide improved efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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 5712722312. 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.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights