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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to the reply filed on November 13, 2025.
Claims 1 through 12 and 14 through 20, all as amended either directly or indirectly. Of these claims, 1 through 9, 19, and 20 remain withdrawn as noted in greater detail below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed on November 13, 2025 have obviated the objections to the drawings, to the abstract and to the claims as cited in the previous Office action by the examiner. However, applicant’s amendments have also introduced new informalities into both the amended abstract and into the amended claims. Therefore, the amended abstract and the amended claims are objected to as set forth in greater detail below, while the objections to the drawings have been withdrawn.
Meanwhile, applicant's arguments filed on November 13, 2025 relating to the rejection of claim 11 as failing to comply with the written description requirement and as being indefinite relating to the same have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, argues that “Figure 1 clearly illustrates a separate occupant zone heating and cooling system 136”. While Figure 1 does clearly illustrate an occupant zone heating and cooling system 136 which is separate from the hydronic system heating/cooling loop, Figure 1 merely shows a box 136 representing the occupant zone heating and cooling system and thus fails to show any particular elements of the system 136. Applicant also argues that the occupant zone heating and cooling system 136 “is described in several places in the specification” and lists at least paragraphs [0019], [0028], and [0029] as supposedly describing the occupant zone heating and cooling system sufficiently to meet the written description requirement and in order to clearly set forth the metes and bounds of protection sought by the limitation “occupant zone heating and cooling system” as recited in claim 11. However, applicant’s arguments fail to specifically point out which elements are necessarily encompassed by the limitation “occupant zone heating and cooling system” and the cited paragraphs of the specification merely cite certain elements of the occupant zone and heating and cooling system without spelling out which elements necessarily make up the same. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive with regard to the aforementioned means-plus-function limitations in claim 11 and the corresponding written description requirement and indefiniteness rejections of claim 11 are maintained as noted below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims as cited in the previous Office action by the examiner have been considered by the examiner but are moot because applicant’s arguments relate to the claims as amended (and not as previously rejected since applicant has amended to claims to overcome the anticipatory prior art rejections of the same) and because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Election/Restriction
Claims 1 through 9, 19, and 20 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to the nonelected inventions of Group I and Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 16, 2025.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The amended abstract of the disclosure filed on November 13, 2025 is objected to because it does not avoid using phrases which can be implied (i.e., “is provided”) and because it also does not avoid using legal phraseology (i.e., “comprising”) commonly used in patent claims. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 10 through 12 and 14 through 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: “senses a presence of an occupant” [claim 10, line 8] should be replaced with “senses the presence of an occupant” to improve grammatical correctness and readability (i.e., noting, as an aside, that an occupant inherently has a presence); and, “based at least at least on presence of an occupant” [claim 10, line 18] should be replaced with “based at least on the presence of an occupant” to improve grammatical correctness and readability. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an occupant zone heating/cooling system” in claim 11 (i.e., “system” is a generic placeholder and “heating/cooling” is functional language).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 11 recites “an occupant zone heating/cooling system separate from the hydronic system heating/cooling loop”. However, the originally filed disclosure fails to fully and clearly describe or even to fully illustrate the occupant zone heating/cooling system as claimed. For example, Figure 2 merely shows an occupant zone heat exchanger 206 and a system line 136, but no further details regarding the any remaining elements of the occupant zone heating/cooling system. Meanwhile, the originally filed disclosure also merely briefly mentions the occupant zone heating/cooling system but fails to identify which elements are necessarily intended to be encompassed thereby. Therefore, claim 11 fails to meet the written description requirement.
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.
Claims 10 through 12 and 14 through 18 are 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.
Base claim 10 as amended now recites the limitations “sensors, operatively connected to the battery management system and including at least one occupant sensor that senses a presence of an occupant in an occupant zone” in lines 7-8 of the claim. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for the limitation “the battery management system” in line 7 of claim 10 because the limitation “a battery management system” is first introduced in line 9 of the claim. Recommend moving the new limitations to later than line 9 of claim 1 in order to provide proper antecedent basis in the claims for the same.
With regard to claim 11 as written, the disclosure fails to disclose which particular elements (or equivalents thereof) are intended to be necessarily encompassed by the limitation “an occupant zone heating/cooling system” as recited in the claim, thus further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim.
Additionally, in claim 11, the limitation “an occupant zone heating/cooling system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The structure described in the specification does not appear to perform the entire function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Any claim not specifically mentioned is at least rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 10, 11, 14, and 16 through 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazaira et al. (U.S. Pub. No. US 2023/0074313 A1; published on March 9, 2023; made of record via IDS) in view of Madireddi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,576,806 B1).
With regard to claim 10 of the instant application, Mazaira et al. discloses a vehicle essentially as claimed, including for example, with regard to base claim 10, a vehicle 12 comprising: an occupant zone or passenger cabin; a battery or battery pack 24; a battery heating and cooling system or thermal management system 56 including a refrigeration system or refrigerant subsystem 60 and a fluid battery circuit or coolant subsystem 58, the fluid battery circuit 58 including a battery heating/cooling loop and a hydronic system heating/cooling loop (i.e., at least broadly readable on the various subloops of the coolant subsystem 58); sensors (i.e., sensor 30 and other “various sensors” as cited in paragraph [0020]; and, a battery management system or BECM 33 including at least one processor (i.e., microprocessor as cited in paragraph [0017]); and a memory (i.e., FLASH, ROM, RAM, EPROM and/or EEPROM as also cited in paragraph [0017]) including instructions (i.e., the memory of the controller being programmed; see at least the abstract and the Summary). While the limitations in claim 10 following “which when” are conditional and thus cannot be relied upon as such for patentability, Mazaira et al. does also disclose that the memory of the controller 33 is programmed with instructions to operate the battery heating and cooling system or thermal management system 56 to heat and/or cool the battery towards a target temperature or threshold temperature of the battery 24, receive indication/information to provide ancillary/additional heating or cooling to the occupant zone or cabin, determine that conditions exist for providing heating or cooling to the occupant zone or cabin, and direct the coolant circulating through the battery heating/cooling loop to the hydronic system heating/cooling loop to heat or cool the occupant zone or cabin (i.e., see paragraphs [0003] through [0005] and [0034] through [0036]).
While Mazaira et al. discloses most of the features of claim 10 of the instant application, including automatic control of the thermal management system 56 (i.e., which is readable on the battery heating and cooling system as claimed in the instant application which is operatively connected to the battery management system) based on various sensors (i.e., see at least paragraphs [0020] and [0026]) and various sensors operatively connected to the battery management system or BECM 33, Mazaira et al. fails to specifically disclose per se that the sensors include at least one occupant sensor that senses the presence of an occupant in an occupant zone as newly recited in claim 10 and also fails to specifically disclose that the presence of an occupant in the occupant zone is used to determine that conditions are met for providing ancillary heating or cooling as also newly recited in claim 10.
However, it is known in the art of battery management systems for occupant-carrying vehicles and taught, for example, by Madireddi et al. to include occupancy sensors ROS 96 (i.e., column 5, lines 40-48) which are connected to a battery management system including processor 54 (i.e., see at least column 4, lines 47-58 and claim 12) and to provide ancillary/additional heating or cooling based on the presence and/or absence of an occupant in an occupant zone (i.e., in the sleeper compartment; see at least column 4, lines 47-58 and claim 12) in order to optimize energy usage and occupant comfort (i.e., see at least column 1, lines 39-43 and lines 64-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at or before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the vehicle of Mazaira et al. by specifically including at least one occupancy sensor operatively connected to the battery management system to sense the presence or absence of an occupant in an occupant zone (i.e., in a sleeper compartment) and to use the detected occupancy as the basis for determining the conditions for providing ancillary/additional heating or cooling as taught by Madireddi et al. in order to optimize both energy usage and occupant comfort as taught by Madireddi et al.
With regard to claim 11 of the instant application, Mazaira et al. also discloses an occupant zone heating/cooling system (i.e., cabin A/C system; see at least paragraph [0021]) separate from the hydronic system heating/cooling loop.
With regard to claim 14 of the instant application, Mazaira et al. discloses an occupant zone or cabin, which can be considered to be a sleeper compartment at least as very broadly interpreted as appropriate for pending claims.
While the limitations in claim 16 following “wherein” are conditional and functional, and thus cannot be relied upon as such for patentability, Mazaira et al. does also disclose that indication to provide ancillary/additional heating or cooling to the occupant zone or cabin comprises a temperature measurement of the occupant zone or cabin outside a target occupant zone temperature (i.e., see paragraph [0036]).
While the limitations in claim 17 following “wherein” are conditional and functional, and thus cannot be relied upon as such for patentability, Mazaira et al. does also disclose that indication to provide ancillary/additional heating or cooling to the occupant zone or cabin comprises a user request to precondition the occupant zone or cabin by requesting a fan speed and cabin set point temperature, for example (i.e., see paragraph [0034]).
While the limitations in claim 18 following “wherein” are conditional and functional, and thus cannot be relied upon as such for patentability, Mazaira et al. does also disclose that the memory of the controller 33 is programmed with instructions to operate the battery heating and cooling system or thermal management system 56 to direct coolant so as to heat or cool the occupant zone or cabin, the instructions causing the heating and cooling system to circulate the coolant to absorb heat from or cool the battery, to receive an indication to provide ancillary/additional heating to the occupant zone, and to redirect the heat-absorbed coolant within the thermal management system 56 (i.e., see paragraphs [0003] through [0005]).
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazaira et al. (U.S. Pub. No. US 2023/0074313 A1; published on March 9, 2023; made of record via IDS) in view of Madireddi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,576,806 B1) and further in view of Rotenburg et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0032724 A1; published February 3, 2022; made of record via IDS).
As noted in greater detail above, Mazaira et al. in view of Madireddi et al. discloses the inventive vehicle essentially as claimed, including for example (with regard to base claim 10 from which claims 12 and 13 depend), a vehicle 12 comprising: an occupant zone or passenger cabin; a battery or battery pack 24; a battery heating and cooling system or thermal management system 56 including a refrigeration system or refrigerant subsystem 60 and a fluid battery circuit or coolant subsystem 58. While disclosing a hydronic or coolant system 58, Mazaira et al. does not disclose the heating/cooling loop connected to tubing embedded in a hydronic object, where the hydronic object is at least one of a series of elements, including, for example, flooring, a headliner, and a seat. However, it is well-known in the art of vehicular hydronic systems and taught by Rotenburg et al. to connect a vehicular hydronic system via tubing to a hydronic object where the tubing is connected to and included in the hydronic object (i.e., paragraph [0009]) and where the hydronic object is one or more of flooring 16/16’, a headliner 12/12’ and a seat 14/14’/14”/14’” in order to thermally regulate the hydronic object(s) using an existing vehicular hydronic system 4. It would therefore have been obvious to one skilled in the art at or before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the vehicle 12 of Mazaira et al. by contacting the various hydronic objects to the hydronic system as taught by Rotenburg et al. in order to optimize the temperature control of these objects as desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action without any patentably significant broadening and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not show nor reasonably suggest the vehicle including all of the elements which are structurally and functionally interrelated as recited in claim 10 wherein the occupant zone is partially located exterior to the vehicle or wherein a portion of the occupant zone is located exterior to the vehicle.
Conclusion
The additional prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 LJILJANA V CIRIC whose telephone number is (571)272-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday, 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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/Ljiljana V. Ciric/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
LJILJANA (Lil) V. CIRIC
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763