Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “ the control module comprises:
a low voltage input terminal in electronic communication with a high voltage output terminal of each of the plurality of active balancing modules;”
Fig. 2 demonstrates P4 [LV input terminal] is connected to L1P and L2N [i.e. low voltage terminals] not high voltage terminals. Furthermore, applicant fixed this language in the European patent office response.
For purposes of examination, it will be assumed applicant meant: “a low voltage input terminal in electronic communication with a low[[high]] voltage output terminal”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
tagout circuit breaker (claim 7)
cradle (Claims 2 & 20)
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant has claimed a cradle and a tagout circuit breaker, but no part numbers were disclosed, nor were they disclosed being part of the figures. Emend to add them.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kong et al (USPGPN 20230420956).
Independent Claim 1, Kong discloses a battery system (Figs. [3-6, 10-14D, esp. 4, 5, 10, 14A], abstract) comprising:
a plurality of battery modules (101, see at least ¶[24]);
a plurality of active balancing modules (102 of Fig. 14A, corresponds to switches [S11, S12] and corresponding switches of Figs. [4, 5, 10]), wherein each of the plurality of active balancing modules is removably coupled to a battery module in the plurality of battery modules (any element is removably coupled, if not via switches [i.e. to removing the electrical current flow via open-circuit], then via ability to simply cut the wiring between them, or even simple removal, where as Kong does not define the elements being integral {noted while ¶’s [44, 69, 213] gives an example/may/possible that the converters/switches can be inside the battery module or integrated onto it, is not defined to be so};
furthermore, ¶[175] states that any of the connections [i.e. converters and switches to the battery modules] can be detachable, i.e. removable, in an even narrower reading of the broadest reasonable interpretation); and
a control module electrically coupled to both the plurality of battery modules and the plurality of active balancing modules, wherein the control module is configured to balance a loading of the plurality of battery modules through the plurality of active balancing modules (BCU ¶’s [206, 209, 224, 240-253, 262-264, 266, 297, 298 301-334, 373 esp. 224,298,307,321).
Dependent Claim 4, Kong discloses each of the plurality of battery modules is coupled to one of the plurality of active balancing modules (Figs. [4, 5, 10, 14A]).
Dependent Claim 5, Kong discloses a ratio of a number of battery modules in the plurality of battery modules to a number of active balancing modules in the plurality of active balancing modules is 1:1 (Figs. [4, 5, 10, 14A]).
Dependent Claim 9, Kong discloses a power coupling module coupled to the plurality of battery modules (10b of Figs. [4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14B-14D]).
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 1, 3-6, 10, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (USPGPN 20140132217) in view of Zhang et al (USPGPN 20110115436).
Independent Claim 1, Kim teaches a battery system (Figs. [1-3]) comprising:
a plurality of battery modules (while 100 is the only battery module shown in Figs. [1-3], ¶[40] says that there may be a plural number of battery modules);
a plurality of active balancing modules, wherein each of the plurality of active balancing modules is removably (¶’s [20, 21, 48, 57]) coupled to a battery module in the plurality of battery modules (Figs. [1-3] demonstrates a system where the each of the battery module of the plurality of battery modules ¶[40] have two balancing circuits coupled to it, with Figs. [1 & 2] explicitly showing at least one of them removed, while Fig. 3 showing them all connected together;
noted that the balancing operation of the batteries and battery modules is performed in an active manner by opening and closing of the switches, and the applicant has not definitively defined active balancing as that of Claim 6, but rather has left the interpretation as open [“can be, may be, includes” are exemplary/optional language, not definitive]); and
a control module (200 in light of ¶40]) electrically coupled to both the plurality of battery modules and the plurality of active balancing modules, wherein the control module is configured to balance a loading of the plurality of battery modules through the plurality of active balancing modules (as the balancing units are described to balance cells, it performs the intended use, and it is noted the applicant has only claimed the loading is balanced).
If the applicant claims limitations related to Claim 6, then those features are not explicitly claimed. Furthermore, while Kim refers the multiple modules being there, Kim does not explicitly describe balancing voltage/state-of-charge across battery modules nor explicitly show each of the battery modules having an associated active balancing circuit.
Zhang (Figs. [1-3B, 8, 9, esp. 8]) shows a system with a plurality of battery modules (802a-804n) connected together, with each having an associated active module balancing circuit to shuttle charge from one battery module to another (¶’s [43-51, esp. 44, 46-48], where ¶[48] is most relevant to applicant’s Claim 6, also noted that analogous to Kim and the present application, each battery module have an active balancing module on either side, 808 & 806, where the transformer-inductor based equalization circuit of Figs. [1-3A, 9] would indicate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the balancing circuit in 808 would correspond to that type rather than the circuitry of Kim). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by using the active balancing circuit of Zhang over the balancing circuit of Kim, it would serve to reduce the power lost since rather than expending the power in the resistors or Kim, the power is instead partially recycled into another battery, see further Zhang ¶’s [17, 24, 37, 44, 55] which describes longevity and speed improvements for the operation;
Furthermore, by employing the serially connected batteries of Zhang over the parallel described connections of Kim, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that it would serve to improve the voltage range of loads, since serial battery modules can increase the voltage loads which can be connected).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with Zhang to provide improved efficiency, longevity, speed, and voltage range.
Dependent Claim 3, the combination of Kim and Zhang teaches each of the plurality of battery modules is disposed between one of the plurality of active balancing modules and a second of the plurality of active balancing modules (Figs. [1-3] of Kim, Fig. 8 of Zhang). Dependent Claim 4, the combination of Kim and Zhang teaches each of the plurality of battery modules is coupled to one of the plurality of active balancing modules (Figs. [1-3] of Kim, Fig. 8 of Zhang).
Dependent Claim 5, the combination of Kim and Zhang teaches a ratio of a number of battery modules in the plurality of battery modules to a number of active balancing modules in the plurality of active balancing modules is 1:1 (Zhang Fig. 8 for the active balancing module used only for active balancing between modules, Kim 300 for removable balancing modules).
Dependent Claim 6, the combination of Kim and Zhang teaches the control module is configured to pass, via one of the plurality of active balancing modules, excess energy in one battery module to an adjacent of the plurality of battery modules if the adjacent of the plurality of battery modules is at a lower state of charge, wherein each of the plurality of battery modules is coupled together in series (Zhang ¶’s [44, 46-48]).
Dependent Claim 10, the combination of Kim and Zhang teaches each of the plurality of active balancing modules is encapsulated in an enclosure (300 and 200 are shown to have their own enclosure in Figs. [1-3] of Kim; 808 & 806 being boxes implies they have enclosures).
Independent Claim 15, Kim teaches an active balancing module for a secondary life application of a battery module of an electrically powered aircraft (noted that due to applicant claiming “for a secondary life application of a battery module of an electrically powered aircraft,”, this limitation is interpreted as an intended use, In response to applicant's argument that the active balancing unit is “for a secondary life application of a battery module of an electrically powered aircraft,”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim;
Furthermore, noted that these limitations are only present in the preamble: Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claims 15-20. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for a secondary life application of a battery module of an electrically powered aircraft” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02)
the active balancing module (Figs. [1-3]) comprising:
an active balancing circuit (Figs. [1-3] demonstrates a system where the each of the battery module of the plurality of battery modules ¶[40] have two balancing circuits coupled to it, with Figs. [1 & 2] explicitly showing at least one of them removed, while Fig. 3 showing them all connected together;
noted that the balancing operation of the batteries and battery modules is performed in an active manner by opening and closing of the switches, and the applicant has not definitively defined active balancing as that of Claim 6, but rather has left the interpretation as open [“can be, may be, includes” are exemplary/optional language, not definitive]) configured to be electrically coupled to power terminals of at least one of the battery module (while 100 is the only battery module shown in Figs. [1-3], ¶[40] says that there may be a plural number of battery modules),
an enclosure encompassing the active balancing circuit (300 and 200 are shown to have their own enclosure in Figs. [1-3]).
Kim is silent to the active balancing circuit configured to provide active balancing between adjacent battery modules during operation of a battery system with the adjacent battery modules disposed therein. Furthermore, while Kim refers the multiple modules being there, Kim does not explicitly describe balancing voltage/state-of-charge across battery modules nor explicitly show each of the battery modules having an associated active balancing circuit.
Zhang (Figs. [1-3B, 8, 9, esp. 8]) teaches the active balancing circuit configured to provide active balancing between adjacent battery modules (802a-804n) during operation of a battery system with the adjacent battery modules disposed therein (¶’s [43-51, esp. 44, 46-48], where ¶[48] is most relevant to applicant’s Claim 6, also noted that analogous to Kim and the present application, each battery module have an active balancing module on either side, 808 & 806, where the transformer-inductor based equalization circuit of Figs. [1-3A, 9] would indicate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the balancing circuit in 808 would correspond to that type rather than the circuitry of Kim). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by using the active balancing circuit of Zhang over the balancing circuit of Kim, it would serve to reduce the power lost since rather than expending the power in the resistors or Kim, the power is instead partially recycled into another battery, see further Zhang ¶’s [17, 24, 37, 44, 55] which describes longevity and speed improvements for the operation;
Furthermore, by employing the serially connected batteries of Zhang over the parallel described connections of Kim, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that it would serve to improve the voltage range of loads, since serial battery modules can increase the voltage loads which can be connected).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with Zhang to provide improved efficiency, longevity, speed, and voltage range.
Dependent Claim 16, the combination of Kim and Zhang teaches a configuration coupling the active balancing module to the battery module is reversible (Kim shows in Figs. 1-3 that at least one of the balancers are reversibly removable, ¶’s [20, 21, 48, 57]).
Dependent Claim 17, the combination of Kim and Zhang teaches the active balancing circuit is bi-directional (as Zhang is described to involve balancing between the battery modules, it would involve power going bidirectionally, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands).
Dependent Claim 19, the combination of Kim and Zhang teaches the active balancing module is configured to physically couple to the exterior of the battery module (see at least Fig. 1 of Kim, in light of at least ¶’s [20, 21, 48, 57]).
Claims 2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (USPGPN 20140132217) in view of Zhang et al (USPGPN 20110115436), further in view of Okui (USPGPN 20240266862)
Dependent Claim 2, the combination of Kim and Zhang teaches wherein one of the plurality of battery modules is retained between a first and a second of the plurality of active balancing modules (Figs. [1-3] of Kim shows this configuration, similar for Zhang for 802 between 808 and 806 in at least Fig. 8).
Kim fails to explicitly teach a cradle system configured to receive each of the plurality of battery modules therein.
Okui teaches a cradle system configured to receive each of the plurality of battery modules therein (Figs. [1-2B] shows rack/cradle to receive each of the plurality of battery modules). Official notice taken that a battery rack/cradle can reliably retain a battery (or other article) with little worry that it would be dropped, thus improving safety and longevity of the battery since a dropped battery may not last as long due to damage, and a damaged battery is more likely to explode/inflame/emit-gas/overheat/short/etc. (i.e. provide improved safety).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Zhang with Okui to provide improved longevity, reliability, and safety.
Dependent Claim 20, the combination of Kim and Zhang teaches the active balancing system being physically coupled to the battery module[s] (Figs. [1-3] of Kim shows this configuration, similar for Zhang for 802 between 808 and 806 in at least Fig. 8).
While Kim does not explicitly teach a cradle system is used, applicant has not defined a cradle system, nor shown it in the drawings. Therefore, it is interpreted that the limitation claimed here is identical to that of Claim 2. Thus, Kim fails to explicitly teach a cradle system configured to receive each of the plurality of battery modules therein.
Okui teaches a cradle system configured to receive each of the plurality of battery modules therein (Figs. [1-2B] shows rack/cradle to receive each of the plurality of battery modules). Official notice taken that a battery rack/cradle can reliably retain a battery (or other article) with little worry that it would be dropped, thus improving safety and longevity of the battery since a dropped battery may not last as long due to damage, and a damaged battery is more likely to explode/inflame/emit-gas/overheat/short/etc. (i.e. provide improved safety).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Zhang with Okui to provide improved longevity, reliability, and safety.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (USPGPN 20140132217) in view of Zhang et al (USPGPN 20110115436), further in view of Zhou et al (USPGPN 20220320873)
Dependent Claim 7, combination of Kim & Zhang teaches a plurality of battery modules.
Kim is silent to a tagout circuit breaker in series with the plurality of batteries.
Zhou teaches a tagout circuit breaker (circuit protection component) in series with the plurality of battery modules (see Figs. [1-7, esp. 2-4, 7], defined by ¶[34] as a circuit breaker, in series with the batteries/battery units). Zhou analogously has balancing converters. ¶[34] defines this circuit breaker as providing improved protection/safety (noted that applicant’s specification does not define “tagout circuit breaker”, so for purposes of interpretation, any circuit breaker should meet the claimed requirements).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Zhang with Zhou to provide improved safety.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (USPGPN 20140132217) in view of Zhang et al (USPGPN 20110115436), further in view of Sutardja (USPGPN 20230327460; hereinafter Suta)
Dependent Claim 8, Kim is silent to each of the plurality of battery modules is coupled together in series through one of the plurality of active balancing modules.
Suta teaches each of the plurality of battery modules is coupled together in series through one of the plurality of active balancing modules (Fig. 4B shows battery module/cell-group 504-50N are each connected in series by active balancing modules 424 ¶’s [48-51, esp. 48, 50], where title of the invention describes the type of balancing as active, see benefit over Kim in ¶’s [06, 40, 58]). Suta further teaches this system serves to improve applicability to electric vehicles while reducing loss of overall battery capacity [i.e. improving efficiency] ¶’s [07, 08].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Zhang with Suta to provide improved efficiency and applicability to higher power loads [e.g. electric vehicles]
Claims 11, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (USPGPN 20140132217) in view of Zhang et al (USPGPN 20110115436), further in view of Brandl et al (USPGPN 20140035532)
Dependent Claims 11 and 18, Kim teaches each of the plurality of active balancing modules comprises:
the enclosure (see at least Fig. 1);
a high voltage negative auxiliary input coupled to the enclosure (310: one of the many terminals between both {the top of the highest cell, the bottom of the penultimate lowest cell [i.e. top of the lowest cell]}, and the bottom of the lowest cell);
a high voltage positive input terminal coupled to the enclosure (310: top of the highest cell connection);
a communication terminal coupled to the enclosure (330);
a high voltage positive auxiliary output coupled to the enclosure (310: one of the many terminals between both {the top of the highest cell and the top of the penultimate highest cell [i.e. bottom of the highest cell]}, and the bottom of the lowest cell); and
a high voltage positive output terminal coupled to the enclosure (310: bottom of the lowest cell connection);.
Kim fails to explicitly teach a low voltage output terminal coupled to the enclosure.
Brandl teaches a low voltage output terminal coupled to the enclosure (see Figs. [1-4, esp. 1, 2, 4] which shows each balancing module CBM [see context in Fig. 3] having a plurality of inputs/outputs including for communication and control signals [i.e. low-voltage compared to battery high voltage]). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by having a plurality of controllable input/outputs terminals, it would serve to improve the controllability of the system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Zhang with Brandl to provide improved controllability.
Dependent Claim 12, the combination of Kim, Zhang, and Brandl teaches the high voltage positive input terminal for each of the plurality of active balancing modules is coupled to one of the plurality of battery modules (as explained above for Kim, IN1-INn for Brandl, Fig. 8 for Zhang, all show this feature).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (USPGPN 20140132217) in view of Zhang et al (USPGPN 20110115436) and Brandl et al (USPGPN 20140035532), further in view of Cooper et al (USPGPN 20190181656)
Dependent Claim 13, Kim is silent to the communication terminal is coupled to the plurality of battery modules.
Cooper teaches each cell of the plurality of cells have its own cell controller (MCU of 24 & 22 in Figs. [1-3], where each cell module is shown in Fig. 1 as for a single cell, communication with equivalent to module controller BMS ¶[36]). Analogously, Cooper describes balancing operations can be performed via 12 (¶’s [19, 30, 33]).
As shown, all of Kim, Zhang, and Brandl describe the balancing modules performing operations on individual groups of cells in the battery modules. Thus, by having a cell controller for each of the cells, and sending that to the equivalent battery module controller/balancer, Cooper modifies of Kim in view of Zhang and Brandl to meet the claim language. Cooper teaches that by removing the detection lines between the module controller/balancer and each of the cells via the modification, it serves to reduce costs and complexity (¶[02])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Zhang and Brandl with Cooper to provide reduced complexity and costs.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (USPGPN 20140132217) in view of Zhang et al (USPGPN 20110115436), further in view of Bijlenga et al (USPGPN 2025026693; hereinafter Bije)
Dependent Claim 14, the combination of Kim and Zhang teaches
the control module comprises: a low voltage output (Kim shows control input to each of the switches, Zhang describes 822 communicating with both 806 and 808 in ¶’s [45-47], arrows show them to be bidirectional)
While Kim is silent to a low voltage input terminal in electronic communication with a low [see claim objection interpretation] voltage output terminal of each of the plurality of active balancing modules, this features is met by the communication inputs of Fig. 8 of Zhang (Zhang describes 822 communicating with both 806 and 808 in ¶’s [45-47], arrows show them to be bidirectional, thus bidirectional in scope, in addition to the bidirectional communication [i.e. low voltage input/outputs] between 822 and 818). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by receiving inputs from the batteries, it serves to allow the controller to receive sensed data and so determine the correct pattern to balance between the modules (thus improving reliability of the battery modules, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands, and further for the reasons previously explained above to combine Kim with Zhang).
Kim is silent to a communications input terminal and a communications output terminal, the communications input terminal in electrical communication with the communications output terminal via a daisy chain from the communications input terminal through each of the plurality of battery modules and the plurality of active balancing modules and out the communications output terminal; and at least one vehicle communication terminal.
Bije teaches a communications input terminal and a communications output terminal, the communications input terminal in electrical communication with the communications output terminal via a daisy chain from the communications input terminal through each of the plurality of battery modules and the plurality of active balancing modules and out the communications output terminal; (Figs. [1, 4, 5] demonstrates that controller 20 is in daisy chain communication with both module 150 [interpreted that for each module 120 together with the corresponding 100 together makes an equivalent to the claimed battery module] along with balancing unit 110, ¶[42], where control of switches 125 enables active balancing to occur ¶’s [34, 35])
and at least one vehicle communication terminal (communications between 20 and 70 represent a vehicle communication terminal, as at least ¶’s [41, 42] defines the system as being used in an electric vehicle). Official notice taken that one of ordinary skill in the art understands that daisy chain serves to reduce the complexity and amount of wires/terminals in a system as instead of a communication line for every system, less wires can be used.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Zhang with Bije to provide reduced complexity and amount of wires/terminals.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Drew Dunn can be reached at 5712722312. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights