DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/552,661, “METHOD FOR CALIBRATING A FUEL SENSOR”, was filed with the USPTO on 9/26/2023 and has a foreign priority document of DE10 2021 203 443.8 filed on 4/7/2021.
This office action is in response to communication filed on 9/26/2023.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/552,661, filed on 9/26/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/26/2023 and 12/4/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
PGpub of instant application, in paragraphs [0104] and [0125]: “the fuel sensor S1” should read “the fuel sensor S”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-10 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.
The limitation "the cathode system" is recited in lines 4 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests that the aforementioned limitation should read “a cathode system”.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it’s not clear what is “a zero-point calibration”. For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitation has been interpreted as “a process when the exhaust line is purged with predetermined amount of air”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the following steps". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the aforementioned limitation has been interpreted as “following steps”.
Claim 2 is indefinite because it’s not clear if the term “can be” means that all subsystems are sources of fuel leakage or are not sources of fuel leakage. For examination purposes, the aforementioned term has been interpreted as “are”.
Claim 2 is indefinite because of the recitation “all subsystems”. It’s not clear if all subsystems are additional features/components of the fuel cell system in claim 1 or all subsystems are combinations of established features/components of the fuel cell system of claim 1. For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitation has been interpreted as “combinations of established features of the fuel cell system of claim 1”.
Claim 4 is indefinite because it’s not clear what is “a quantity-point calibration”. For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitation has been interpreted as “a process to develop a correlation between increase of the hydrogen mass flow and the response of the fuel sensor”.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “the mass flow of the fuel-containing reactant”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests that the aforementioned limitation should read “a mass flow of the fuel-containing reactant”.
Claim 9 is indefinite because it’s not clear if the recitations “a fuel cell system” and “a fuel sensor” are the same fuel cell system and same fuel sensor of claim 1 or a different fuel cell system with a different fuel sensor. To overcome this rejection, the Examiner suggests changing “a” to “the”. For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitations have been interpreted as “the fuel cell system” and “the fuel sensor”.
Claim 9 is indefinite because it’s not clear if claim 9 is claiming the limitation of claim 1 or the limitation of “wherein the fuel sensor (S) is arranged in the exhaust air line (12) and is configured so as to sense a fuel leakage and/or a fuel mass flow in all subsystems (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5) of the fuel cell system (100) which can be sources of a fuel leakage and/or a fuel mass flow”. For examination purposes, claim 9 has been interpreted as “the fuel cell system with the fuel sensor calibrated by a method according to claim 1”.
Claim 10 is indefinite because it’s not clear if the recitation “a fuel cell system” is the same fuel cell system of claim 9 or a different fuel cell system. To overcome this rejection, the Examiner suggests changing “a” to “the”. For examination purposes, claim 10 has been interpreted as “A vehicle with the fuel cell system according to claim 9”.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as they depend from, and therefore incorporate the claimed subject matter from claims rejected under this statute.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitation of “wherein the fuel sensor (S) is arranged in the exhaust air line (12) and is configured so as to sense a fuel leakage and/or a fuel mass flow in all subsystems (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5) of the fuel cell system (100) which can be sources of a fuel leakage and/or a fuel mass flow.” is already claimed in claim 1, therefore claim 9 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 10 is rejected as they depend from, and therefore incorporate the claimed subject matter from claims rejected under this statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-2 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakuma (JP 2007200602 A, provided on IDS filed on 9/26/2023, citations see machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Sakuma teaches a method (dry air supply process, [0023]) for calibrating a fuel sensor (10, Fig. 1) of a fuel cell system (1, Fig. 1) that includes at least one fuel cell (2, Fig. 1), a cathode path (path connecting 7-8-2-9-10 or passage 11, see Fig. 1) for providing an oxygen-containing reactant (air, [0013]) to the at least one fuel cell (2, Fig. 1),
wherein the cathode system (cathode system, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 1) includes an air supply line (pipe connecting 7-8-2, see Fig. 1) for providing an air supply to the at least one fuel cell (2, Fig. 1) (supplies air to 2, see [0017]) and an exhaust air line (cathode outlet pipe connecting 9-10, see Fig. 1 and [0018]) for removing exhaust air from the at least one fuel cell (2, Fig. 1) (air removed by passing through 2 and 9 then reaches 10, see [0021]),
and wherein the cathode system (cathode system, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 1) includes a bypass line (11, see Fig. 1) connecting the air supply line (pipe connecting 7-8-2, see Fig. 1) and the exhaust air line (cathode outlet pipe connecting 9-10, see Fig. 1 and [0018]) in order to guide the supply air (air, an oxidant gas, [0017]) from the air supply line (pipe connecting 7-8-2, see Fig. 1) at least in part past the at least one fuel cell (2, Fig. 1) and introduce it into the exhaust air line (cathode outlet pipe connecting 9-10, see Fig. 1 and [0018]) (when 8 and 9 closed, 12 in path 11 opens to guide a predetermined flow rate of dry air supply to 10, located in the cathode outlet pipe, see [0018] and [0023]; 11 bypasses 2, see Fig. 1),
and wherein the fuel cell system also includes an anode system (anode system, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 1) for providing a fuel-containing reactant (hydrogen gas, [0013]) to the at least one fuel cell (2, Fig. 1),
wherein the fuel sensor (10, Fig. 1) is arranged in the exhaust air line (cathode outlet pipe connecting 9-10, see Fig. 1 and [0018]) and is configured so as to sense a fuel leakage (a hydrogen leak sensor (hydrogen concentration detecting means), [0013]) and/or a fuel mass flow in all subsystems (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5) of the fuel cell system (100) which can be sources of a fuel leakage and/or a fuel mass flow, wherein the method (dry air supply process, [0023]) comprises the following steps:
1) opening a bypass valve (12, Fig. 1) in the bypass line (11, Fig. 1) in order to operate the bypass line (11, Fig. 1) in the open state (see [0023]);
2) closing shut-off valves (8 and 9, Fig. 1) in the air supply line (pipe connecting 7-8-2, see Fig. 1) and in the exhaust air line (cathode outlet pipe connecting 9-10, see Fig. 1 and [0018]) in order to conduct all supply air from the air supply line (pipe connecting 7-8-2, see Fig. 1) past the at least one fuel cell (2, Fig. 1) and introduce it into the exhaust air line (cathode outlet pipe connecting 9-10, see Fig. 1 and [0018]) (when 8 and 9 closed, 12 in path 11 opens to guide a predetermined flow rate of dry air supply to 10, located in the cathode outlet pipe, see [0018] and [0023]; 11 bypasses 2, see Fig. 1), and
3) carrying out a zero-point calibration (S202; S202 is a process when the exhaust line is purged with a predetermined flow rate of air and the hydrogen concentration in the exhaust line is considered as be or close to zero for one skilled in the art, see [0023] and [0024]; interpretation see U.S.C. 112b above) of the fuel sensor (10, Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
752
1321
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Sakuma teaches wherein
in step 2), all subsystems (includes pipe connecting 7-8-2-9; pipe connecting 4-5-2-6; interpretation see 112(b) rejection above) of the fuel cell system (1, Fig. 1) which can be (interpretation see 112b rejection above) sources of fuel leakage and/or fuel mass flow (hydrogen supply, see [0016]), including at least one purge (pipe connecting 7-8-2-9, see Fig. 1; note: pipe connecting 7-8-2-9 can purge air) and/or drainage system (Q1) and a stack environment ventilation system, a tank system environment ventilation system (pipe connecting 4-5-2-6, see Fig. 1; note: when 6 opens, it ventilates hydrogen to cathode outlet pipe), and/or an anode path ventilation system (Q4), are switched off (during dry air supply process, 8 and 9 close, so that pipe connecting 7-8-2-9 switched off, see [0023]; 6 also closes at least for a period of time during the dry air supply process at system start-up; note: 6 is provided to discharge impurities built up during the reaction of fuel cell (see [0016]), so that at least for a period of time during the dry air supply process at system start-up, 6 is switched off.) and/or blocked as direct sources and a cathode path is disconnected as an indirect source (Q5).
Regarding claim 7, Sakuma teaches wherein
the method comprises at least another of the following steps:
6) carrying out a purge operation of the anode system (when 6 opens, see Fig. 1; [0016]),
7) evaluating a purge gas (hydrogen with impurities such as nitrogen, [0013]) using measurement results (a state of being thinner than the flammable concentration, see [0016]) of the fuel sensor (10, Fig. 1), or
8) adapting the purge operation of the anode system (20) until an anticipated concentration of the fuel-containing reactant in a mass flow of the purge gas is sensed by the fuel sensor (S).
Regarding claim 8, Sakuma teaches wherein
the steps of the method according to the invention are carried out simultaneously, at least in part concurrently, and/or sequentially (see [0023]; note: the step of closing valves 8 and 9 and the step of opening valve 12 have to be either simultaneously, in part concurrently or sequentially.),
and/or that the method is carried out regularly,
and/or that the method is carried out in an integrated fashion in an operation of the fuel cell system (100), at moments when no electrical power from the fuel cell system (100) is required.
and/or that the fuel cell system (100) is transitioned into a powerless state.
Regarding claim 9, Sakuma teaches a fuel cell system (1, Fig. 1) with a fuel sensor (10, Fig. 1) calibrated by a method (dry air supply process, [0023]) according to claim 1 (interpretation see 112(b) and (d) rejections; when the limitations of fuel cell in claim 1 are met, limitations of claim 9 are also met; citations and mappings see the rejection of claim 1).
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.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma (JP 2007200602 A, provided on IDS filed on 9/26/2023, citations see machine translation) in view of Kemmer (EP 3340357 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Sakuma teaches
wherein
the method comprises at least another of the following steps:
2 a) operating a compressor (7, Fig. 1) in the air supply line (pipe connecting 7-8-2, see Fig. 1) in at least one speed (speed of the compressor; “the air sucked from the outside air is pressurized by the compressor 7”, see [0017]; note: compressor pressurizes air when compressor is running at one speed),
2 b) determining a target mass flow of the oxygen-containing reactant (a predetermined flow rate of dry air, see [0023]; note: a predetermined flow rate of dry air would provide a target mass flow of air) that is to arrive at the fuel sensor (upstream of the hydrogen leak sensor 10, see [0023]; see Fig. 1),
2 c) the mass flow of the oxygen-containing reactant (a predetermined flow rate of dry air, see [0023]) that is to arrive at the fuel sensor (upstream of the hydrogen leak sensor 10, see [0023]; see Fig. 1) in the cathode system (cathode system, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 1),
2 d) checking a pressure (air pressure at the cathode, see [0017]) in the cathode path (7-8-2-9-10 or 11, see Fig. 1) by means of a pressure sensor (air pressure sensor, see [0017]),
2 e) varying the speed (rotational speed, see [0022]) at which the compressor (7, Fig. 1) is operated,
3 a) monitoring the measurement results of the fuel sensor (the reliability of the hydrogen leak sensor 10 can be recovered, see [0024]), and/or
3 b) determining that the fuel sensor (S) is functional when the measurement results of the fuel sensor (S) do not substantially change upon varying the speed of the compressor (V), upon varying the mass flow of the oxygen-containing reactant, and/or upon varying the pressure in the cathode path (10).
Sakuma does not teach
part of 2c): checking the mass flow by using measured values of a mass flow sensor in the cathode system.
Kemmer teaches checking (by 72, Fig. 1) the mass flow (air flow, [0025]) by using measured values (measuring an air flow, [0025]) of a mass flow sensor (72, Fig. 1) in the cathode system (54, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to add the mass flow sensor taught by Kemmer in the exhaust line next to the hydrogen leak sensor the step 2c as taught by Sakuma to measure the air flow (see Kemmer [0025]).
Regarding claim 10, Sakuma teaches a fuel cell system (1, Fig. 1; interpretation see 112(b) rejection) according to claim 9 (see the rejection of claim 9).
However, Sakuma does not teach a vehicle.
Kemmer teaches a vehicle (18 and 10, Fig. 1) with a fuel cell system (10, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to place the fuel cell system taught by Sakuma onto the drive unit taught by Kemmer to generate electrical energy for the drive unit (see Kemmer [0019] and [0020]).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma (JP 2007200602 A, provided on IDS filed on 9/26/2023, citations see machine translation) in view of Kuebel (US 20110302993 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Sakuma teaches
wherein
the method comprises at least another of the following steps:
4) introducing (when 6 opens, see Fig. 1) a mass flow of the fuel-containing reactant (hydrogen) into the exhaust air line (cathode outlet pipe connecting 9-10, see Fig. 1 and [0018]) before the fuel sensor (10, Fig. 1) (when purge valve 6 opens, hydrogen with impurity gas discharges to cathode outlet pipe before 10, [0016] and Fig. 1),
Sakuma does not teach
5) carrying out a quantity-point calibration of the fuel sensor (S).
Kuebel teaches wherein
5) carrying out a quantity-point calibration (a test of the detection of the sensor 30 with response to a pulse of a known quantity of hydrogen gas generated by the injector, see [0016]; interpretation see U.S.C. 112b above) of the fuel sensor (30, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sakuma by adding the injector and run the test as taught by Kuebel to determine whether the sensor is operating properly (see Kuebel [0016] and [0017]).
Regarding claim 6, Sakuma teaches
wherein
the method comprises at least another of the following steps:
4 g) the mass flow (when 6 opens, see Fig. 1) of the fuel-containing reactant (hydrogen) introduced into the exhaust air line (cathode outlet pipe connecting 9-10, see Fig. 1 and [0018]) before the fuel sensor (10, Fig. 1),
Sakuma does not teach
4 g) increasing or reducing or switching off the mass flow of the fuel-containing reactant,
5 b) checking whether and/or how quickly the fuel sensor (S) reacts to increasing or reducing or switching off the mass flow.
Kuebel teaches wherein
4 g) increasing or reducing or switching off the mass flow (when injector stops a pulse of a known quantity of hydrogen gas, see [0016]) of the fuel-containing reactant (hydrogen, [0016]),
5 b) checking whether (a test if hydrogen pulses that can be detected by the hydrogen sensor 30, see [0016]) and/or how quickly the fuel sensor (30, Fig. 1) reacts to increasing or reducing (by 24, Fig. 1) or switching off the mass flow (a pulse of a known quantity of hydrogen gas, see [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sakuma by adding the injector and run the test as taught by Kuebel to determine whether the sensor is operating properly (see Kuebel [0017]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma (JP 2007200602 A, provided on IDS filed on 9/26/2023, citations see machine translation) in view of Kuebel (US 20110302993 A1) in view of Kemmer (EP 3340357 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Sakuma in view of Kuebel teaches wherein
the method comprises at least another of the following steps:
4 a) operating a compressor (7, Sakuma Fig. 1) in the air supply line (pipe connecting 7-8-2, see Sakuma Fig. 1) in at least one speed (a predetermined flow rate, see Sakuma [0023]),
4 b) determining a target mass flow of the oxygen-containing reactant (a predetermined flow rate of dry air, see Sakuma [0023]; note: a predetermined flow rate of dry air would provide a target mass flow of air) present at the fuel sensor (upstream of the hydrogen leak sensor 10, see Sakuma [0023]; see Sakuma Fig. 1),
4 c) the mass flow of the oxygen-containing reactant (a predetermined flow rate of dry air, see Sakuma [0023]) that is to be present at the fuel sensor (upstream of the hydrogen leak sensor 10, see Sakuma [0023]; see Sakuma Fig. 1) in the cathode system (cathode system, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 1),
4 d) checking a pressure (air pressure at the cathode, see Sakuma [0017]) in the cathode path (7-8-2-9-10 or 11, see Sakuma Fig. 1) by means of a pressure sensor (air pressure sensor, see Sakuma [0017]),
4 e) varying the speed (rotational speed, see Sakuma [0022]) at which the compressor (7, Sakuma Fig. 1) is operated,
4 f) the fuel-containing reactant (hydrogen, Sakuma [0016]) introduced into the exhaust air line (cathode outlet pipe connecting 9-10, see Sakuma Fig. 1 and [0018]) before the fuel sensor (10, Sakuma Fig. 1), and/or
5 a) calibrating the fuel sensor (S) to a measurement point corresponding to a concentration of the fuel-containing reactant, as a function of the mass flow of the fuel-containing reactant introduced into the exhaust air line (12) before the fuel sensor (S), the speed of the compressor (V), the mass flow of the oxygen-containing reactant on the sensor (S), and/or the pressure in the cathode path (10).
Sakuma in view of Kuebel does not teach
part of 4c): checking the mass flow by using measured values of a mass flow sensor in the cathode system,
part of 4 f) varying the mass flow of the fuel-containing reactant.
Kuebel teaches varying (by 24, see Fig. 1 and [0016]; note: when the injector stops pulse of hydrogen, it’s considered switching off the hydrogen, therefore varying the flow of hydrogen) the mass flow of the fuel-containing reactant (a known quantity of hydrogen gas, see [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sakuma in view of Kuebel by adding the injector taught by Kuebel to determine whether the sensor is operating properly by looking for the proper increase in the hydrogen gas concentration as a result of the controlled pulse providing a known amount of hydrogen (see Kuebel [0017]).
Sakuma in view of Kuebel does not teach
part of 4c): checking the mass flow by using measured values of a mass flow sensor in the cathode system.
Kemmer teaches checking (by 72, Fig. 1) the mass flow (air flow, [0025]) by using measured values (measuring an air flow, [0025]) of a mass flow sensor (72, Fig. 1) in the cathode system (54, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to add the mass flow sensor taught by Kemmer in the exhaust line next to the hydrogen leak sensor the step 2c as taught by Sakuma in view of Kuebel to measure the air flow (see Kemmer [0025]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(NAMBA): US 20210257637 A1, Fig. 2
(WATANABE): US 20190273273 A1, Fig. 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NING CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1163. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/NING CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights