DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed 12 February 2026. In view of this communication, claims 1-20 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 12 February 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (page 7 of the Remarks) alleges, regarding the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), that the claims requiring a specific use of the electrical machine “add an element not present in the independent claim”. No further explanation, and no evidence, is provided in support of the argument. As stated previously, these claims merely recite the intended use of the electrical machine as “a propulsion motor”, as “an alternator”, or within “a vehicle”. Since no additional structure or functions are recited, the claims do not further limit the electrical machine. Thus, this argument is unpersuasive and said previous grounds of rejection are maintained.
The Applicant’s second argument (pages 8-9 of the Remarks) alleges that Brucker does not disclose the fluid circuit recited in claim 1. Instead of explaining what is lacking in the reference, the argument simply discusses other features disclosed by Brucker, then gives a general accounting of the supposed advantages of the “radial surfaces” used in the present invention. In response to the Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., said radial surfaces) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, this argument is unpersuasive and the previous grounds of rejection in view of Brucker are maintained.
The Applicant’s third argument (pages 9-10 of the Remarks) alleges that Schidlowski cannot be modified to “provide braking surfaces facing along a longitudinal axis” because it teaches away from this limitation. However, this argument is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, it is unclear to what claim limitations this argument is intended to refer, as the phrasing used in the argument does not match any limitations from the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Second, the concept of “teaching away” is not applicable to anticipation rejections, and the modification discussed is not one that is proposed in the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. In the obviousness rejection of claim 3, the modification involves incorporating the vanes of Brucker into the surfaces of Schidlowski. And, in the obviousness rejection of claim 10, the modification involves adding a cooling system to the electrical machine of Schidlowski. Thus, it is unclear which rejection is even being argued against. For these and the above reasons, this argument is unpersuasive and the previous grounds of rejection in view of Schidlowski are maintained.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Disclosure
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA )], 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(s) 13-14 and 16 is/are 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.
Claim 13 recites the electrical machine of claim 1 “is a propulsion motor for a vehicle”. This is a statement of the intended use of the electrical machine which does not further limit the structure/function of said machine in any way. Thus, claim 13 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the electrical machine of claim 1 “is an alternator for the vehicle”. This is a statement of the intended use of the electrical machine which does not further limit the structure/function of said machine in any way. Thus, claim 14 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 16 recites a “vehicle comprising the electrical machine according to claim 1”. This is essentially just a statement of the intended use of the electrical machine, in a vehicle, which does not further limit the structure/function of said machine in any way. Thus, claim 16 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1.
The 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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8, 11-14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schidlowski et al. (US 2022/0135007 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Schidlowski”.
Regarding claim 1, Schidlowski discloses an electrical machine [1] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0082-0084) comprising:
a rotor [R], a stator [S], a housing [10] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0082); and
a fluid circuit [8] provided between an interior of the housing [10] and the rotor [R] axially along a longitudinal axis of the rotor [R], wherein a width extension [8c] of the fluid circuit [8] axially along the longitudinal axis of the rotor [R] is defined by a first surface [s1] and a second surface [s2] facing each other (fig. 2; ¶ 0085-0093; the fluid is “flooded” into the electrical machine, particularly but not limited to within the air-gap 8c; any of the paired opposing surfaces, s1/s2, can serve as the recited surfaces),
PNG
media_image1.png
344
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the fluid circuit [8] is adapted to, by means of a fluid [oil] in the fluid circuit, exert a braking torque on the rotor [R] responsive to one of the first surface [s1] or the second surface [s2] being non-rotating, and the other of the first surface [s1] or the second surface [s2] rotating (fig. 2; ¶ 0027, 0085-0093; the fluid is “flooded” into the electrical machine, between axial surfaces of the rotor and axial surfaces of the housing/intermediate part, and between the outer radial surface of the rotor and the inner radial surface of the stator).
Regarding claim 2, Schidlowski discloses the electrical machine [1] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the first surface [s1] is provided by a surface of the rotor [R] (fig. 2; ¶ 0027, 0085-0093; the fluid is “flooded” into the electrical machine, between axial surfaces of the rotor and axial surfaces of the housing/intermediate part, and between the outer radial surface of the rotor and the inner radial surface of the stator).
Regarding claim 4, Schidlowski discloses the electrical machine [1] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the second surface [s2] is provided by a surface of the housing [10] (fig. 2; ¶ 0027, 0085-0093; the fluid is “flooded” into the electrical machine, between axial surfaces of the rotor and axial surfaces of the housing/intermediate part, and between the outer radial surface of the rotor and the inner radial surface of the stator).
Regarding claim 5, Schidlowski discloses the electrical machine [1] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the fluid circuit [8] further comprises an intermediate part [p1] rotatably arranged on the longitudinal axis of the rotor [R] axially between the rotor [R] and the housing [10], the second surface [s2] is provided by a surface of the intermediate part [p1] (fig. 2; ¶ 0027, 0085-0093; the fluid is “flooded into the electrical machine, including between the right side of the intermediate part and the left side of the rotor).
Regarding claim 8, Schidlowski discloses the electrical machine [1] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the fluid circuit [8] further comprises at least one fluid inlet [12] for receiving the fluid into the fluid circuit [8] and at least one fluid outlet [13] for draining the fluid from the fluid circuit [8] (fig. 2; ¶ 0090-0093).
Regarding claim 11, Schidlowski discloses the electrical machine [1] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the fluid circuit [8] is arranged at a side of the stator [S] proximal to a drive shaft of the electrical machine [1] (fig. 2; ¶ 0027, 0085-0093; the fluid is “flooded into the electrical machine, including between the right side of the intermediate part and the left side of the rotor).
Regarding claim 12, Schidlowski discloses the electrical machine [1] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the fluid circuit [8] is arranged at a side of the stator [S] distal to a drive shaft of the electrical machine [1] (fig. 2; ¶ 0027, 0085-0093; the fluid is “flooded into the electrical machine, including between the right side of the rotor/stator and the left side of the housing).
Regarding claim 13, Schidlowski discloses the electrical machine [1] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the electrical machine [1] is a propulsion motor for a vehicle (¶ 0076, 0106; the electrical machine can serve as either a drive motor or an electrical generator within the vehicle).
Regarding claim 14, Schidlowski discloses the electrical machine [1] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the electrical machine [1] is an alternator for the vehicle (¶ 0076, 0106; the electrical machine can serve as either a drive motor or an electrical generator within the vehicle).
Regarding claim 16, Schidlowski discloses a vehicle comprising the electrical machine [1] according to claim 1, as stated above (¶ 0076, 0106; the electrical machine can serve as either a drive motor or an electrical generator within the vehicle).
Regarding claim 17, Schidlowski discloses the vehicle of claim 16, as stated above, wherein the electrical machine [1] comprises at least one fluid inlet [12] for receiving the fluid into the fluid circuit [8] and at least one fluid outlet [13] for draining the fluid from the fluid circuit [8] (fig. 2; ¶ 0090-0093), wherein the fluid inlet [12] and fluid outlet [13] are operatively connected to a temperature system of the vehicle (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0010; the same oil used for cooling and lubrication of the transmission is used as the braking fluid of the electrical machine).
Regarding claim 18, Schidlowski discloses a method of exerting a braking torque on the rotor [R] of an electrical machine [1] of claim 1, as stated above, the method comprising controlling a viscous drag of the fluid circuit [8] (¶ 0082).
Regarding claim 19, Schidlowski discloses the method of claim 18, as stated above, wherein controlling a viscous drag of the fluid circuit [8] comprises providing fluid at an inlet [12] of the fluid circuit [8] and/or draining fluid at an outlet [13] of the fluid circuit [8] (¶ 0082).
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 12, 14, 16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brucker (US 5,418,412), hereinafter referred to as “Brucker”.
Regarding claim 1, Brucker discloses an electrical machine [10] (fig. 1-4; col. 2, lines 45-60) comprising:
a rotor [63], a stator [64], a housing [13,62] (fig. 1; col. 3, lines 44-50); and
a fluid circuit [60] provided between an interior of the housing [62] and the rotor [63] axially along a longitudinal axis of the rotor [63] (fig. 1; col. 3, lines 44-50), wherein a width extension of the fluid circuit [60] axially along the longitudinal axis of the rotor [63] is defined by a first surface [70] and a second surface [72] facing each other (fig. 1; col. 3, lines 51-68; col. 4, lines 1-12),
PNG
media_image2.png
538
818
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the fluid circuit [60] is adapted to, by means of a fluid in the fluid circuit [60], exert a braking torque on the rotor [63] responsive to one of the first surface [70] or the second surface [72] being non-rotating, and the other of the first surface [70] or the second surface [72] rotating (fig. 1, 3-4; col. 3, lines 51-68; col. 4, lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 2, Brucker discloses the electrical machine [10] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the first surface [70] is provided by a surface of the rotor [63] (fig. 1, 3; col. 3, lines 51-63).
Regarding claim 3, Brucker discloses the electrical machine [10] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the first surface [70] and the second surface [72] are respectively provided with one or more vanes [71] adapted to fluidly engage vanes [76] of the other surface [72] to provide a viscous drag between the surfaces [70,72] (fig. 3-4; col. 3, lines 58-68; col. 4, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 9, Brucker discloses the electrical machine [10] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the fluid circuit [60] forms part of a cooling system of the electrical machine [10] (fig. 1; col. 3, lines 23-41).
Regarding claim 12, Brucker discloses the electrical machine [10] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the fluid circuit [60] is arranged at a side of the stator [64] distal to a drive shaft [17] of the electrical machine [10] (fig. 1; col. 3, line 64 to col. 4, line 12).
Regarding claim 14, Brucker discloses the electrical machine [10] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the electrical machine [10] is an alternator for {a} vehicle (col. 1, lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 16, Brucker discloses a vehicle comprising the electrical machine [10] according to claim 1, as stated above (col. 1, lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 18, Brucker discloses a method of exerting a braking torque on the rotor of an electrical machine [10] of claim 1, as stated above, the method comprising controlling a viscous drag of the fluid circuit [60] (fig. 1; col. 3, lines 51-68; col. 4, lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 19, Brucker discloses the method of claims 18, as stated above, wherein controlling a viscous drag of the fluid circuit [60] comprises: providing fluid at an inlet of the fluid circuit and/or draining fluid at an outlet of the fluid circuit [60] (fig. 1; col. 3, lines 51-68; col. 4, lines 1-12).
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 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.
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(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schidlowski in view of Brucker.
Regarding claim 3, Schidlowski discloses the electrical machine [1] of claim 1, as stated above. Schidlowski does not disclose that the first surface [s1] and the second surface [s2] are respectively provided with one or more vanes [8b] adapted to fluidly engage vanes of the other surface to provide a viscous drag between the surfaces (fig. 2; ¶ 0027, 0092; Schidlowski discloses adding either a separate impeller or “blades attached to the front side of the rotor”, but does not disclose opposing vanes located on the housing).
Brucker discloses an electrical machine [10] (fig. 1-4; col. 2, lines 45-60) comprising a rotor [63], a stator [64], a housing [13,62] (fig. 1; col. 3, lines 44-68; col. 4, lines 1-12); and a fluid circuit [60] provided between a rotating first surface [70] and a stationary second surface [72] facing each other (fig. 1; col. 3, lines 51-68; col. 4, lines 1-12), wherein the first surface [70] and the second surface [72] are respectively provided with one or more vanes [71] adapted to fluidly engage vanes [76] of the other surface [72] to provide a viscous drag between the surfaces [70,72] (fig. 3-4; col. 3, lines 58-68; col. 4, lines 1-7).
PNG
media_image3.png
408
859
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement both of the rotating and stationary surfaces of Schidlowski having vanes as taught by Brucker, in order to prevent a loss of the oil supply shared with other engine components thereby preventing a catastrophic failure (col. 1, lines 16-40).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schidlowski in view of Toliyat et al. (US 2023/0179066 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Toliyat”.
Regarding claim 10, Schidlowski discloses the electrical machine of claim 1, as stated above. Schidlowski does not disclose a Water Ethanol Glycol cooling system.
Toliyat discloses an electrical machine [200] comprising a rotor [101,103] and a stator [102,104,105] within a housing (fig. 2; ¶ 0024), further comprising a Water Ethanol Glycol cooling system [404] (¶ 0028-0029).
PNG
media_image4.png
494
732
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the electrical machine of Schidlowski having the cooling system as taught by Toliyat, in order to reduce thermal resistance between the windings and coolant thereby more effectively removing heat without reducing the amount of copper in the slots thereby also maximizing torque density (¶ 0033-0035 of Toliyat).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 6-7, 15, and 20 is/are 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:
Regarding claim 6, and all claims dependent thereon, the prior art does not disclose, inter alia, the electrical machine of claim 1, wherein the first surface and/or the second surface is movable along the rotational axis to control the width extension of the fluid circuit, preferably, the fluid circuit further comprises a substantially constant amount of fluid.
Regarding claim 15, and all claims dependent thereon, the prior art does not disclose, inter alia, the electrical machine of claim 1, wherein the first surface is provided by a surface of the rotor; the first surface and the second surface are respectively provided with one or more vanes adapted to fluidly engage vanes of the other surface to provide a viscous drag between the surfaces; wherein the second surface is provided by a surface of the housing or the fluid circuit further comprises an intermediate part rotatably arranged on the longitudinal axis of the rotor axially between the rotor and the housing and the second surface is provided by a surface of the intermediate part; the first surface and/or the second surface is movable along the rotational axis to control the width extension of the fluid circuit; the fluid circuit further comprises at least one fluid inlet for receiving the fluid into the fluid circuit and at least one fluid outlet for draining the fluid from the fluid circuit; the fluid circuit forms part of a cooling system of the electrical machine; the electrical machine further comprises a Water Ethanol Glycol cooling system; the fluid circuit is arranged at a side of the stator proximal to a drive shaft of the electrical machine or the fluid circuit is arranged at a side of the stator distal to a drive shaft of the electrical machine; the electrical machine is a propulsion motor for a vehicle or the electrical machine is an alternator.
Regarding claim 20, and all claims dependent thereon, the prior art does not disclose, inter alia, the method of claim 18, wherein controlling a viscous drag of the fluid circuit comprises: controlling a width extension of the fluid circuit, wherein the first surface and/or the second surface of the fluid circuit is movable along the rotational axis.
While the prior art comprises, separately, the feature of controlling the viscous drag in the fluid circuit and the feature of a rotor/shaft that is axially movable along the rotational axis, it does not disclose these features in combination with one another. Further, the purpose of a movable rotor/shaft is most commonly for variation of a conical air-gap or engagement or disengagement of the shaft, not for a braking system. Thus, no evidence has been found of why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these features. As such, the invention recited above is neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Sturlason et al. (US 3,588,284) discloses an electrical machine having a fluid braking system.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/about-ptab/new-ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/patent-trial-and-appeal-board-pro-bono-program-independent. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final replay that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Andrews whose telephone number is (571)270-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, Oluseye Iwarere can be reached at 571-270-5112. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael Andrews/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834