DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-02-10, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended; Claims 4-6, 8, 12, 14, and 18-19 have been (previously) canceled.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17, and 20 are pending.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,984,611. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The ‘611 patent is directed towards a battery pack with pouch cells having an enclosure, an ejecta barrier located between the pouch cells, comprising a rigid carbon fiber element with a lithophilic metal coating, and vents for each pouch cell directed away from each other, having tubes defining respective flow paths that does not intersect with each other, wherein the ejecta barrier is a wall in between the cell within an enclosure (claim 1). All the substantive limitations of the instant claims, therefore appear to be within the metes and bounds of the claims of the ‘611 patent, or obvious derivatives thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 now require “[a pouch cell housing] having a pair of electrodes and a pouch containing an electrolyte electrically coupled to the pair of electrodes.” There is no support in the specification for this limitation. The Remarks filed 2026-02-10 suggest that support can be found in “Fig. 1 and associated text of the application,” but no specific text is cited, and Fig. 1 does not show this limitation. Elements 120 and 144 in Fig. 1 are described as first and second “pouches” in the specification (see ¶ 0020 of US 2024/0283070). These pouches are depicted with some liquid-looking electrolyte 124/148 in the pouch. The electrodes 108/132 stick out of the pouch.
PNG
media_image1.png
892
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
There is no indication that “a pair of electrodes” is “electrically coupled” to “a pouch containing an electrolyte.” It makes physical sense that the specification does not describe this. An electrolyte is ionically but not electrically conductive. If the pouch were actually “electrically coupled” to “a pair of electrodes” the electrodes would immediately short and the pouch cell would be useless as an energy storage device.
In addition, the term “pouch cell housing” does not appear in the specification, and it is unclear what it even refers to now that the term “a pouch” has been introduced to the claim. The specification does not provide support for two distinct objects, one a “pouch cell housing” and one a “pouch.”
The claims have been interpreted in line with what is actually shown in the drawings. Namely pouch cells housed in a generic housing with a shared wall. The dependent claims are rejected for depending on rejected claims.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 now require “[a pouch cell housing] having a pair of electrodes and a pouch containing an electrolyte electrically coupled to the pair of electrodes.” As discussed above, there is no support for these limitations in the specification as filed. It is unclear what Applicant even intends to claim as a distinctive feature over what was known in the prior art. The plain reading of the new limitations describes a cell short circuited through a conductive pouch cell laminate housing.
The drawings appear to show a shared housing wall, distinct from the pouch cell housing(s), which is described as an ejecta barrier. The drawings do not clearly show a “pouch cell housing” separate and distinct from an “ejecta barrier” 156, as well as from the “pouches” 120/144. The claims now refer to:
pouch cell housing(s)
pouch(es)
a plurality of surfaces that enclose the pouch(es)
an ejecta barrier distinct from the plurality of surfaces
Fig. 1 only shows pouches 120/144 and ejecta barrier 156 as numbered elements. There is no clearly enumerated thing called a “pouch cell housing,” nor is “pouch cell housing” a term that appears in the specification. Numbers 104/128 refer to “cell pouch(es)” in the specification but it is unclear what this actually means. It appears to refer vaguely to a pouch cell in a generic housing, suggested by the unnumbered lines connected to 156 in Fig.1 It is impossible to determine, however, what positive structural features are necessitated by the various terms in the claims, and bulleted above. What is a “pouch cell housing” and how is it different from a “pouch” and from “a plurality of surfaces that enclose” the pouch? The claims seems to reflect a fundamental confusion in the specification and figures about what exactly is being described and, presumably, enabled.
The claims have been interpreted in line with what is actually shown in the drawings, which Applicant points to for support of the instant amendments (see Remarks 2026-02-10). The dependent claims are rejected for depending on rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lange (EP 3279968 to Lange et al.) in view of Metz (US 2015/0162582 to Metz et al.) and Howard (US Patent No. 11,084,386 to Howard et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Lange teaches:
a battery assembly comprising a multi-cell enclosure having individual accommodation spaces formed by surfaces that enclose individual cells, wherein those cells can be pouch cells (Fig. 9, ¶ 0039, etc.)
wherein the accommodation spaces of adjacent cells share a wall between them, which functions within the broadest reasonable interpretation of an “ejecta barrier” because it is a wall that blocks any ejecta which might be thrown off by the cells contained within the accommodation space(s), the shared wall supporting the pouch cell(s) with which it is associated (Figs. 6 and 9)
PNG
media_image2.png
1006
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lange does not explicitly teach:
the battery used in an aircraft
a vent coupled to the interior of the pouch cell housing through another one of the plurality of surfaces and configured to remove battery ejecta from the housing (and therefore away from the shared wall, or ejecta barrier)
Metz, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery in an aircraft, teaches a plurality of cells having a vent on a top surface of their individual enclosures with a vent path 10 shaped to remove battery ejecta from the aircraft (Fig. 1, paras 0027-0028).
PNG
media_image3.png
818
684
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to provide a vent and vent path oriented away from the shared walls in Lange, with the motivation of providing a safe ejection path for vented gases and the like. It further would have been obvious to provide a vent for each cell enclosure, to ensure each cell enclosure can vent. Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, while rearrangement of known parts is obvious when the device operates in the same fashion towards the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.04, VI [R-6].
Electric aircraft were also well-known in the art. See e.g. the cited art in the IDS filed 4/11/2024, such as US 2019/0339334. It would have been obvious to provide the battery pack of Lee in a device such as an electric aircraft, since such uses for battery packs were conventional in the art.
Lange further teaches:
shared accommodation walls formed of a laminate, formed of aluminum and copper (¶ 0053, Figs 3a-3b), which are interpreted to be a “lithophilic” material within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, since lithium can deposit on copper and alloys with aluminum
wherein the general enclosure is made of polymers and/or glass fibers (¶ 0019-0020, claims 4-6)
Lange does not explicitly teach a shared wall comprising a rigid carbon fiber element having a lithophilic metal coating configured to absorb lithium-based compounds Howard, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery enclosure, teaches an enclosure formed of rigid carbon fiber (column 4, line 67; column 6, line 47; column 7, line 29), coated with a metal shielding material such as silver or copper (column 5 line 19). Silver is designated as a lithophilic material in the instant specification, and copper is interpreted to be one under BRI because lithium deposits on it. It would have been obvious to form the shared walls of the enclosure in Lange from copper/silver coated carbon fiber, with the motivation to provide a rigid housing that shields EMI from the batteries (taught in Howard) and/or provide a rigid, lightweight core with a cladding that conducts heat (taught in Lange at ¶ 0039-0041). Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). A silver/copper cladding/coating on a carbon fiber shared wall is inherently “configured to absorb lithium-based compounds” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase, regardless of its other functional uses as an EMI shielding or heat-conductive layer.
Regarding Claims 2-3, Metz teaches:
a vent free of contact with any surface of an adjacent cell (Fig. 1)
a vent that does not intersect any portion of an adjacent vent
It would have been obvious to provide a vent and vent path oriented away from the partition wall in Lange, with the motivation of providing a safe ejection path for gases and the like. Providing multiple cells, and multiple enclosures for multiple cells, was routine in the art, depending on the power requirements of the powered device. It further would have been obvious to provide a vent for each cell unit in a subdivided housing with the motivation to provide a clear path for any ejecta, like gases, for each sub-enclosure. Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, while rearrangement of known parts is obvious when the device operates in the same fashion towards the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.04, VI [R-6].
Regarding Claim 7, Metz teaches:
a vent path having a vertical first portion oriented away from a side wall of the enclosure, and a second portion oriented horizontally (Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to provide a vent and vent path oriented away from the partition wall in Lee, like that taught in Metz, with the motivation of providing a safe ejection path for gases and the like.
Regarding Claim 9, Lange teaches:
a battery assembly comprising a multi-cell enclosure having individual accommodation spaces formed by surfaces that enclose individual first and second cells, wherein those cells can be pouch cells (Fig. 9, ¶ 0039, etc.)
wherein the accommodation spaces of adjacent cells share a wall between them, which functions within the broadest reasonable interpretation of an “ejecta barrier” because it is a wall that blocks any ejecta which might be thrown off by the cells contained within the accommodation space(s), the shared wall supporting the first and second pouch cells with which it is associated (Figs. 6 and 9)
Lange does not explicitly teach:
the battery used in an aircraft
a vent coupled to the interior of the pouch cell housing through another one of the plurality of surfaces and configured to remove battery ejecta from the housing (and therefore away from the shared wall, or ejecta barrier)
Metz, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery in an aircraft, teaches a plurality of cells having a vent on a top surface of their individual enclosures with a vent path 10 shaped to remove battery ejecta from the aircraft (Fig. 1, paras 0027-0028). It would have been obvious to provide a vent and vent path oriented away from the shared walls in Lange, with the motivation of providing a safe ejection path for vented gases and the like. It further would have been obvious to provide a vent for each cell enclosure, to ensure each cell enclosure can vent. Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, while rearrangement of known parts is obvious when the device operates in the same fashion towards the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.04, VI [R-6].
Electric aircraft were also well-known in the art. See e.g. the cited art in the IDS filed 4/11/2024, such as US 2019/0339334. It would have been obvious to provide the battery pack of Lee in a device such as an electric aircraft, since such uses for battery packs were conventional in the art.
Lange further teaches:
shared accommodation walls formed of a laminate, formed of aluminum and copper (¶ 0053, Figs 3a-3b), which are interpreted to be a “lithophilic” material within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, since lithium can deposit on copper and alloys with aluminum
wherein the general enclosure is made of polymers and/or glass fibers (¶ 0019-0020, claims 4-6)
Lange does not explicitly teach a shared wall comprising a rigid carbon fiber element having a lithophilic metal coating configured to absorb lithium-based compounds Howard, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery enclosure, teaches an enclosure formed of rigid carbon fiber (column 4, line 67; column 6, line 47; column 7, line 29), coated with a metal shielding material such as silver or copper (column 5 line 19). Silver is designated as a lithophilic material in the instant specification, and copper is interpreted to be one under BRI because lithium deposits on it. It would have been obvious to form the shared walls of the enclosure in Lange from copper/silver coated carbon fiber, with the motivation to provide a rigid housing that shields EMI from the batteries (taught in Howard) and/or provide a rigid, lightweight core with a cladding that conducts heat (taught in Lange at ¶ 0039-0041). Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). A silver/copper cladding/coating on a carbon fiber shared wall is inherently “configured to absorb lithium-based compounds” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase, regardless of its other functional uses as an EMI shielding or heat-conductive layer.
Regarding Claim 10, Lange teaches:
a stack of cells
Lange does not necessarily teach a “vertical stack” of pouch cells. Vertical stacking was conventional in the art as an alternative to horizontal stacking. The Office notes, for example, that the instant specification does not show a distinct vertical stacking or how that impacts the relevant structures of elements in the instant claims. It would have been obvious to provide a vertical stack rather than a horizontal stack, depending on space considerations and routine design decisions.Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, while rearrangement of known parts is obvious when the device operates in the same fashion towards the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.04, VI [R-6].
Regarding Claims 11 and 13, Metz teaches:
a vent free of contact with any surface of an adjacent cell (Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to provide a vent and vent path oriented away from the partition wall in Lee, with the motivation of providing a safe ejection path for gases and the like. Providing multiple cells, and multiple enclosures for multiple cells, was routine in the art, depending on the power requirements of the powered device. It further would have been obvious to provide a vent for each cell unit in a subdivided housing with the motivation to provide a clear path for any ejecta, like gases, for each sub-enclosure. Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, while rearrangement of known parts is obvious when the device operates in the same fashion towards the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.04, VI [R-6].
Regarding Claim 15, Metz teaches:
a vent path having a vertical first portion oriented away form a side wall of the enclosure, and a second portion oriented horizontally (Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to provide a vent and vent path oriented away from the partition wall in Lange, like that taught in Metz, with the motivation of providing a safe ejection path for gases and the like.
Regarding Claim 16, Lange teaches:
each cell “mounted on” the accommodation space walls, including the shared walls, which are larger than the bottom and side walls (Fig. 9, etc.)
“Mounting” is interpreted to mean “supported by” absent any further definition, like a particular fastening connection or adhesive connection. Lange’s configuration substantially matches that depicted in the instant drawings, and is therefore interpreted to either read on “mounting” or render obvious “mounting,” since the instant specification does not describe or depict any critical structural difference that would clearly differentiate it from the supporting sidewalls depicted in Lange.
Regarding Claim 17, Lange teaches:
a battery assembly comprising a multi-cell enclosure having individual accommodation spaces formed by surfaces that enclose a stacked plurality of individual cells, wherein those cells can be pouch cells (Fig. 9, ¶ 0039, etc.)
wherein the accommodation spaces of adjacent cells share a wall between them, which functions within the broadest reasonable interpretation of an “ejecta barrier” because it is a wall that blocks any ejecta which might be thrown off by the cells contained within the accommodation spaces, the shared walls supporting the plurality of adjacent cells with which they are associated (Figs. 6 and 9)
Lange does not explicitly teach:
the battery used in an aircraft
a vent coupled to the interior of the pouch cell housing through another one of the plurality of surfaces and configured to remove battery ejecta from the housing (and therefore away from the shared wall, or ejecta barrier)
Metz, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery in an aircraft, teaches a plurality of cells having a vent on a top surface of their individual enclosures with a vent path 10 shaped to remove battery ejecta from the aircraft (Fig. 1, paras 0027-0028). It would have been obvious to provide a vent and vent path oriented away from the shared walls in Lange, with the motivation of providing a safe ejection path for vented gases and the like. It further would have been obvious to provide a vent for each cell enclosure, to ensure each cell enclosure can vent. Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, while rearrangement of known parts is obvious when the device operates in the same fashion towards the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.04, VI [R-6].
Electric aircraft were also well-known in the art. See e.g. the cited art in the IDS filed 4/11/2024, such as US 2019/0339334. It would have been obvious to provide the battery pack of Lee in a device such as an electric aircraft, since such uses for battery packs were conventional in the art.
Lange further teaches:
shared accommodation walls formed of a laminate, formed of aluminum and copper (¶ 0053, Figs 3a-3b), which are interpreted to be a “lithophilic” material within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, since lithium can deposit on copper and alloys with aluminum
wherein the general enclosure is made of polymers and/or glass fibers (¶ 0019-0020, claims 4-6)
Lange does not explicitly teach a shared wall comprising a rigid carbon fiber element having a lithophilic metal coating configured to absorb lithium-based compounds Howard, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery enclosure, teaches an enclosure formed of rigid carbon fiber (column 4, line 67; column 6, line 47; column 7, line 29), coated with a metal shielding material such as silver or copper (column 5 line 19). Silver is designated as a lithophilic material in the instant specification, and copper is interpreted to be one under BRI because lithium deposits on it. It would have been obvious to form the shared walls of the enclosure in Lange from copper/silver coated carbon fiber, with the motivation to provide a rigid housing that shields EMI from the batteries (taught in Howard) and/or provide a rigid, lightweight core with a cladding that conducts heat (taught in Lange at ¶ 0039-0041). Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). A silver/copper cladding/coating on a carbon fiber shared wall is inherently “configured to absorb lithium-based compounds” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase, regardless of its other functional uses as an EMI shielding or heat-conductive layer.
Regarding Claim 20, Lange teaches:
wherein the shared side wall or ejecta barrier has a length extending beyond the respective pair of stacked battery pouch cell housings (Figs. 6 and 11)
each cell “mounted on” the accommodation space walls, including the shared walls, which are larger than the bottom and side walls (Fig. 9, etc.)
“Mounting” is interpreted to mean “supported by” absent any further definition, like a particular fastening connection or adhesive connection. Lange’s configuration substantially matches that depicted in the instant drawings, and is therefore interpreted to either read on “mounting” or render obvious “mounting,” since the instant specification does not describe or depict any critical structural difference that would clearly differentiate it from the supporting sidewalls depicted in Lange.
Response to Arguments
The Remarks filed 2026-02-10 have been considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. The Office notes that every round of amendment since the initial filing in this application has resulted in new § 112 rejections, introducing new matter and producing indefinite claims, and the latest iteration comes no closer to resolving the difficulties.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. 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, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723