DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 11, 13-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 20190053401 A1) in view of Bouda (US 9596761 B2), hereafter referred to as Chang and Bouda.
With regards to claim 1, Chang discloses:
An apparatus (102) (Fig. 1a), comprising: a printed circuit board (116) (Fig. 1a) comprising a circuit region (i.e., the central portion on which 112 and 114 are mounted) (Fig. 1a) and a connector region (i.e., the surrounding portion exterior to 112 and 114) (Fig. 1a); a controller (114 may be a controller; See paragraph [0017]) (Fig. 1a) mounted on the printed circuit board within the circuit region (See Fig. 1a); a plurality of memory devices (112 may be a memory module, which would include multiple memory devices to store memory; See paragraph [0017], In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)) (Fig. 1a) mounted on the printed circuit board within the circuit region (See Fig. 1a) and electrically coupled with the controller (112 and 114 are stated to be electrically connected, See paragraph [0018]); and an upper heat transfer assembly (106, 104) (Fig. 1a) that is configured to extend over the circuit region (i.e., the central portion on which 112 and 114 are mounted) (Fig. 1a) of the printed circuit board (See Fig. 1a), the upper heat transfer assembly (106, 104) (Fig. 1a) comprising: a first heatsink (106) (Fig. 1a) including a first set of heat transfer elements (i.e., fins of 106) (Visible in Fig. 2), the first heatsink thermally coupled with the controller (106 touches 114) (Fig. 1a); a second heatsink (104) (Fig. 1a) including a second set of heat transfer elements (i.e., fins of 104) (See heat sinks pictured with fins in Fig. 2), the second heatsink (104) (Fig. 1a) thermally coupled with the plurality of memory devices (Devices internal to 112; 112 touches 104) (Fig. 1a).
However, Chang does not disclose:
a partition between the first heatsink and the second heatsink configured to provide thermal isolation between the first heatsink and the second heatsink.
However, Bouda discloses:
a partition (228) (Fig. 2b) between the first heatsink (210) (Fig. 2b) and the second heatsink (212) (Fig. 2b) configured to provide thermal isolation between the first heatsink and the second heatsink (Paragraph [0040] states that 228 impairs heat transfer between the heatsinks.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Chang with the partition and associated positioning specifics of Bouda. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to keep thermal loads separate from one another, avoiding reduction in lifespan of components from excessive heat transfer from neighboring heatsinks.
Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With regards to claim 13, Chang discloses:
An apparatus (102) (Fig. 1a), comprising: a printed circuit board (116) (Fig. 1a); a memory device (112 may be a memory module; See paragraph [0017]) (Fig. 1a) mounted to the printed circuit board (See Fig. 1a); a controller (114 may be a controller; See paragraph [0017]) (Fig. 1a) mounted to the printed circuit board (See Fig. 1a) and electrically coupled with the memory device (112 and 114 are stated to be electrically connected, See paragraph [0018]); and a heat transfer assembly (104, 106) (Fig. 1a) comprising: a first heatsink (106) (Fig. 1a) comprising a thermally conductive component (108) (Fig. 1a) extending over a first area of the printed circuit board (i.e., the area below 108) (Fig. 1a) and a first thermal transfer component (110) (Fig. 1a) extending over a second area of the printed circuit board (i.e., the area below 110) (Fig. 1a); a second heatsink (104) (Fig. 1a) comprising a second thermal transfer component (i.e., fins of 104) (See heat sinks pictured with fins in Fig. 2) extending over a third area of the printed circuit board (i.e., the area below 104) (Fig. 1a), wherein the third area (i.e., the area below 104) (Fig. 1a) at least partially overlaps along a plane of the printed circuit board with the first area (First area being the area below 108, note that vertical projections of 108 and 104 onto PCB 116 would overlap.) (Fig. 1a).
Chang does not disclose:
a partition between the first heatsink and the second heatsink configured to provide thermal isolation between the first heatsink and the second heatsink, the partition extending in a direction orthogonal to the plane.
However, Bouda discloses:
a partition (228) (Fig. 2b) between the first heatsink (210) (Fig. 2b) and the second heatsink (212) (Fig. 2b) configured to provide thermal isolation between the first heatsink and the second heatsink (Paragraph [0040] states that 228 impairs heat transfer between the heatsinks.), the partition (228) (Fig. 2b) extending in a direction orthogonal to the plane (228 extends in a vertical direction orthogonal to the PCBs 220-1 and 220-2, which extend laterally, orthogonally to one another.) (See Fig. 2b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Chang with the partition and associated positioning specifics of Bouda. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to keep thermal loads separate from one another, avoiding reduction in lifespan of components from excessive heat transfer from neighboring heatsinks.
See also KSR, supra.
With regards to claim 3, Chang and Bouda disclose all as applied to claim 1, but Chang does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first heatsink and the second heatsink are positioned adjacent to the partition.
However, Bouda discloses:
wherein the first heatsink (210) (Fig. 2b) and the second heatsink (212) (Fig. 2b) are positioned adjacent (See Fig. 2b) to the partition (228) (Fig. 2b).
Additionally, given the Chang-Bouda combination of claim 1, since the partition 228 of Bouda would be placed between the two heatsinks of Chang, both heatsinks would be adjacent to it. See Fig. 1a of Chang.
See also KSR, supra.
With regards to claim 4, Chang and Bouda disclose all as applied to claim 1, and Chen additionally discloses:
wherein the first set of heat transfer elements (i.e., fins of 106) (Fig. 1a) and the second set of heat transfer elements (i.e., fins of 104) (Fig. 1a) extend in a first direction (In Fig. 2, it can be seen the fins of 106 extend parallel to the direction of the airflow, left-right relative to Fig. 1a. While not explicitly shown, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the fins of 104 to also extend in the same direction, adhering to standard airflow in heatsink designs. See also In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).).
See also KSR, supra.
With regards to claim 5, Chang and Bouda disclose all as applied to claim 4, but Chang does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the partition extends in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
However, the Chang-Bouda combination of claim 4 discloses:
wherein the partition (228) (Fig. 2b) (Bouda) extends in a second direction (i.e., up-down, in both Fig. 2b of Bouda and the opening between 104 and 106 of Chang.) perpendicular to the first direction (up-down is perpendicular to the left-right first direction established in the rejection of claim 4) (See Fig. 1a of Chang).
See also KSR, supra.
With regards to claim 11, Chang and Bouda disclose all as applied to claim 1, and Chang additionally discloses:
wherein a height of the first set of heat transfer elements (i.e., fins of 106) (Fig. 1a) is less than a length of the first set of heat transfer elements (See Figs. 1a, 2), and a height of the second set of heat transfer elements (i.e., fins of 104) (Fig. 1a) is less than a length of the second set of heat transfer elements (See Figs. 1a, 2).
Additionally, as the recitation of relative dimensions is the only difference between the prior art and the claims, the limitations are viewed as not being patentably distinct from the prior art combination. Particularly, changing the dimensions of the fins would not be expected to meaningfully alter the action performed by the fins, i.e., cooling of the components. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
See also KSR, supra.
With regards to claim 14, Chang and Bouda disclose all as applied to claim 13, but Chang and Bouda do not disclose:
wherein the first area is smaller than the second area of the apparatus.
However, such a limitation is viewed as being no more than a change in size, with the limitation not having patentable weight. Scaling up or down the area enclosed by heatsinks (i.e., the first and second areas defined by the boundaries of heatsinks) is not viewed as sufficiently distinguishing the instant Application from the prior art of record, with such a change being within the bounds of what one skilled in the art would be capable of. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
See also KSR, supra.
With regards to claim 16, Chang and Bouda disclose all as applied to claim 13, but Chang does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the partition comprises a thermal insulation layer between the first heatsink and the second heatsink.
However, Bouda discloses:
wherein the partition (228) (Fig. 2b) comprises a thermal insulation layer (Paragraph [0040] describes 228 as preventing conductive heat transfer between 210 and 212, i.e., acting as thermal insulation.) between the first heatsink and the second heatsink (First heatsink 210, second heatsink 212, see Fig. 2b). (Disclosed in the claim 13 Chang-Bouda combination.)
See also KSR, supra.
With regards to claim 17, Chang and Bouda disclose all as applied to claim 13, and Chang additionally discloses:
wherein the first heatsink (106) (Fig. 1a) and the second heatsink (104) (Fig. 1a) comprise an alloy of Aluminum (Paragraphs [0013] states that 104 may be aluminum alloy, and paragraph [0015] states that 106 may be aluminum alloy).
See also KSR, supra.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang and Bouda, in further view of Duxbury et al. (US 6625025 B1), hereafter referred to as Duxbury.
With regards to claim 2, Chang and Bouda disclose all as applied to claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first set of heat transfer elements comprises a first quantity of heat transfer elements and the second set of heat transfer elements comprises a second quantity of heat transfer elements, and the first quantity of heat transfer elements is less than or equal to the second quantity of heat transfer elements.
However, Duxbury discloses:
wherein the first set of heat transfer elements (222) (Fig. 1) comprises a first quantity of heat transfer elements (3 fins) (See Fig. 1) and the second set of heat transfer elements (212) (Fig. 1) comprises a second quantity of heat transfer elements (6 fins) (See Fig. 1), and the first quantity of heat transfer elements (3 fins) (See Fig. 1) is less than or equal to the second quantity of heat transfer elements (Second quantity of fins being 6, 3 is less than 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Chang-Bouda combination to include the greater quantity of fins for the second heat transfer element, as suggested by Duxbury. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to provide a greater quantity of fins for the second quantity in order to improve heat dissipation for the memory modules, which are often sensitive to thermal conditions, as well as being comparatively hot, especially as compared to a controller module.
However, such a limitation, i.e., regarding the number of fins, would amount to no more than a duplication of the second quantity of heat transfer elements, such that the quantity would be greater than or equal to the first quantity of heat transfer elements. Increasing fin count would cause predictable results, i.e., improved thermal transfer at the cost of increases in manufacturing complexity, and would not hold patentable significance unless a new or unexpected result would be produced by such an arrangement. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang and Bouda, in further view of Matteson et al. (US 20170242463 A1), hereafter referred to as Matteson.
With regards to claims 6 and 15, Chang and Bouda disclose all as applied to claims 1 and 13, but do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the partition comprises an air gap between the first heatsink and the second heatsink.
However, Matteson discloses:
wherein the partition (16) (Fig. 3) comprises an air gap (16 is an air gap) (Fig. 3) between (See Fig. 3) the first heatsink (44) (Fig. 3) and the second heatsink (26) (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the partition of the Chang-Bouda combination to be an air gap, as taught by Matteson. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce manufacturing complexity and cost.
Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang and Bouda, in further view of Yun et al. (US 20230411238 A1), hereafter referred to as Yun.
With regards to claim 12, Chang and Bouda disclose all as applied to claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the plurality of memory devices comprises a plurality of not-and (NAND) memory devices.
However, Yun discloses:
wherein the plurality of memory devices comprises a plurality of not-and (NAND) memory devices (Paragraph [0022] of Yun discloses that “the non-volatile memory chips may be, for example, NAND or VNAND flash memory chips.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the memory devices of Chang to be NAND based memory chips, as suggested by Yun. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because NAND is a well-known and common type of memory, allowing for benefits such as reduced cost and increased reliability.
Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With regards to claim 18, Chang and Bouda disclose all as applied to claim 13, but do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the memory device comprises a not-and (NAND) memory device.
However, Yun discloses:
wherein the memory device comprises a not-and (NAND) memory device (Paragraph [0022] of Yun discloses that “the non-volatile memory chips may be, for example, NAND or VNAND flash memory chips.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the memory devices of Chang to be NAND based memory chips, as suggested by Yun. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because NAND is a well-known and common type of memory, allowing for benefits such as reduced cost and increased reliability.
See also KSR, supra.
Claims 7, 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang and Bouda, in further view of Gopalakrishna et al. (US 10955881 B2), hereafter referred to as Gopalakrishna.
With regards to claim 7, Chang and Bouda disclose all as applied to claim 1, but do not disclose:
a lower heat transfer assembly coupled with the upper heat transfer assembly, wherein the controller and the plurality of memory devices are enclosed between the upper heat transfer assembly and the lower heat transfer assembly.
However, Gopalakrishna discloses:
a lower heat transfer assembly (128) (Fig. 3h) coupled (Mechanically coupled, see Fig. 3h) with the upper heat transfer assembly (132) (Fig. 3h), wherein the electronic devices (104) (Fig. 3h) are enclosed between the upper heat transfer assembly and the lower heat transfer assembly (See Fig. 3h).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Chang-Bouda combination to include a lower heat transfer assembly and associated positioning specifics and coupling as taught by Gopalakrishna. In doing so, the second heat transfer assembly would be below the controller and plurality of memory devices of the Chang-Bouda combination in order to most effective dissipate heat. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for improved heat dissipation in a small footprint.
Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With regards to claim 9, Chang, Bouda, and Gopalakrishna disclose all as applied to claim 7, but do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the lower heat transfer assembly comprises a single heat sink, and the lower heat transfer assembly is coupled with the upper heat transfer assembly and are thermally isolating.
However, the Chang-Bouda-Gopalakrishna combination of claim 7 discloses:
wherein the lower heat transfer assembly (128) (Fig. 3h) (Gopalakrishna) comprises a single heat sink (128 is a single heat sink, see Fig. 3h) (Gopalakrishna), and the lower heat transfer assembly is coupled with the upper heat transfer assembly (128 was noted to be coupled with upper heat sink 132, with the lower heat sink needing to be coupled to function and maintain contact. See rejection of claim 7.) (Gopalakrishna) and are thermally isolating (The use of an additional heatsink would improve thermal isolation on the opposing side, as the required heat dissipation is reduced, allowing for the partition to be more effective).
See also KSR, supra.
With regards to claim 10, Chang, Bouda, and Gopalakrishna disclose all as applied to claim 7, and Chang additionally discloses:
wherein the upper heat transfer assembly (106, 104) (Fig. 1a), the lower heat transfer assembly, or both comprises an alloy of Aluminum (Paragraph [0013] states that 104 may be aluminum alloy, and paragraph [0015] states that 106 may be aluminum alloy).
See also KSR, supra.
With regards to claim 19, Chang discloses:
An apparatus (102) (Fig. 1a), comprising: a printed circuit board (116) (Fig. 1a) comprising a circuit region (i.e., the central portion on which 112 and 114 are mounted) (Fig. 1a) and a connector region (i.e., the surrounding portion exterior to 112 and 114) (Fig. 1a); a controller (114 may be a controller; See paragraph [0017]) (Fig. 1a) mounted to the printed circuit board within the circuit region (See Fig. 1a); a set of memory devices (112 may be a memory module, which would include multiple memory devices to store memory; See paragraph [0017], In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)) (Fig. 1a) mounted to the printed circuit board within the circuit region (See Fig. 1a) and electrically coupled with the controller (112 and 114 are stated to be electrically connected, See paragraph [0018]); and an upper heat transfer assembly (106, 104) (Fig. 1a) comprising: a first heatsink (106) (Fig. 1a) thermally coupled with the controller (106 touches 114) (Fig. 1a); a second heatsink (104) (Fig. 1a) thermally coupled with the plurality of memory devices (Devices internal to 112; 112 touches 104) (Fig. 1a).
Chang does not disclose:
a partition between the first heatsink and the second heatsink configured to provide thermal isolation between the first heatsink and the second heatsink; and a lower heat transfer assembly coupled with the upper heat transfer assembly, wherein the circuit region of the printed circuit board is enclosed between the upper heat transfer assembly and the lower heat transfer assembly.
However, Bouda discloses:
a partition (228) (Fig. 2b) between the first heatsink (210) (Fig. 2b) and the second heatsink (212) (Fig. 2b) configured to provide thermal isolation between the first heatsink and the second heatsink (Paragraph [0040] states that 228 impairs heat transfer between the heatsinks.).
Also, Gopalakrishna discloses:
a lower heat transfer assembly (128) (Fig. 3h) coupled (Mechanically coupled, see Fig. 3h) with the upper heat transfer assembly (132) (Fig. 3h), wherein the electronic devices (104) (Fig. 3h) are enclosed between the upper heat transfer assembly and the lower heat transfer assembly (See Fig. 3h).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Chang with the partition and associated positioning specifics of Bouda. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to keep thermal loads separate from one another, avoiding reduction in lifespan of components from excessive heat transfer from neighboring heatsinks.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Chang-Bouda combination to include a lower heat transfer assembly and associated positioning specifics as taught by Gopalakrishna. In doing so, the second heat transfer assembly would be below the controller and plurality of memory devices of the Chang-Bouda combination, i.e., the circuit region, in order to most effective dissipate heat. Such a combination would enclose the circuit region, as defined above. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for improved heat dissipation in a small footprint.
See also KSR, supra.
With regards to claim 20, Chang, Bouda, and Gopalakrishna disclose all as applied to claim 19, but Chang and Gopalakrishna do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first heatsink and the second heatsink are adjacent to the partition.
However, Bouda discloses:
wherein the first heatsink (210) (Fig. 2b) and the second heatsink (212) (Fig. 2b) are adjacent (See Fig. 2b) to the partition (228) (Fig. 2b).
Additionally, given the Chang-Bouda-Gopalakrishna combination of claim 19, since the partition 228 of Bouda would be placed between the two heatsinks of Chang, both heatsinks would be adjacent to it. See Fig. 1a of Chang.
See also KSR, supra.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the device, as recited in dependent claim 8, at least in part, because claim 8 recites the limitations:
(Claim 8): “… wherein the lower heat transfer assembly comprises: a third heatsink, wherein the controller is enclosed between the first heatsink and the third heatsink; and a fourth heatsink, wherein the plurality of memory devices are enclosed between the second heatsink and the fourth heatsink.”
Chang (US 20190053401 A1), Bouda (US 9596761 B2), and Gopalakrishna (US 10955881 B2) are believed to be the closest prior art references, and are discussed above.
However, Chang, Bouda, and Gopalakrishna fail to disclose, at least, the aforementioned allowable limitations of dependent claim 8.
The remaining prior art references teach various cooling devices for PCB mounted components, particularly those that are double sided, or that feature heatsinks separated by gaps, that are similar in form to the instant Application. However, none of the remaining prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are believed to render the invention unpatentable as claimed.
Finally, the Office has not identified any double patenting issues. For all of the reasons outlined above, it is believed that the instant Application contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Neukam (DE 102022102886 A1), teaching a double-sided M.2 cooling system.
Mira et al. (US 20190132938 A1), teaching a system with two heatsinks separated by an air gap.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE OXENKNECHT whose telephone number is (703)756-1976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/K.O./Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/MANDEEP S BUTTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights