DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 6-7, 12-13, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 line 3: “of a leakage by using” should be corrected to “of [[a]]the leakage of liquid coolant by using”.
Claim 6 line 2: “a leakage of liquid coolant” should be corrected to “[[a]]the leakage of liquid coolant”.
Claims 7 line 3: “of a leakage by using” should be corrected to “of [[a]]the leakage of liquid coolant by using”.
Claim 12: “comprising a cooling circuit having an inlet and an out, and the arrangement of claim 1, the first probe being positioned in the inlet and the second probe being positioned in the outlet” should be corrected to “comprising [[a]]the cooling circuit having [[an]]the inlet and [[an]]the out, and the arrangement of claim 1, [[the]]a first probe being positioned in the inlet and [[the]]a second probe being positioned in the outlet”.
Claim 13 lines 1-2: “a cooling circuit configured to cool the plurality of battery cells and having an inlet and an outlet for circulating liquid coolant” should be corrected to “[[a]]the cooling circuit configured to cool the plurality of battery cells and having [[an]]the inlet and [[an]]the outlet for circulating the liquid coolant”.
Claim 13 line 3: “and the arrangement of claim 1configured” should be corrected to “and the arrangement of claim 1 configured”.
Claim 16 line 2: “indicative of a leakage comprises” should be corrected to “indicative of [[a]]the leakage of liquid coolant comprises”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1 the limitation(s):
a sensor assembly configured to measure an electric parameter between an inlet and an outlet of the cooling circuit, the electric parameter being dependent on an amount of liquid coolant present between the inlet and the outlet,
wherein the sensor assembly comprises a pair of probes, and
an electronic control unit configured to receive data comprising the measured electric parameter from the sensor assembly and to determine whether the measured electric parameter between the inlet and the outlet is indicative of a leakage of liquid coolant from the cooling circuit.
These limitation(s) highlighted in (bold) is/are directed to an abstract idea and would fall within the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. The above portion(s) of the claim(s) constitute(s) an abstract idea because:
The limitation(s) regarding “an electronic control unit configured to receive data comprising the measured electric parameter from the sensor assembly and to determine whether the measured electric parameter between the inlet and the outlet is indicative of a leakage of liquid coolant from the cooling circuit”, as drafted, is an act of observation and evaluation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than reciting “an electronic control unit,” nothing in the claim language precludes the Step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “an electronic control unit” language, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determining if a coolant leak has occurred.
Further, the limitation regarding “an electronic control unit configured to receive data comprising the measured electric parameter from the sensor assembly and to determine whether the measured electric parameter between the inlet and the outlet is indicative of a leakage of liquid coolant from the cooling circuit”, as drafted, falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. This interpretation is supported in the specification as shown by
PNG
media_image1.png
38
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which is an explicit recitation of an equation corresponding to the claimed limitation (See para[40] – para[41] of the specification as filed). It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Further, referring to the MPEP 2106.04, the claim limitations are analogous to a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations, then it fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the non- abstract additional elements of the claims do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s) recited in the preceding claim(s). In particular, the claims recited the additional elements of:
The limitation(s) regarding “An arrangement configured to detect leakage of a liquid coolant from a cooling circuit” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because it is recited at such a high-level of generality that it is viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to cooling circuits. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, fails to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to.
The limitation(s) regarding “a sensor assembly configured to measure an electric parameter between an inlet and an outlet of the cooling circuit, the electric parameter being dependent on an amount of liquid coolant present between the inlet and the outlet, wherein the sensor assembly comprises a pair of probes” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to. Rather the limitation is recited at such a high-level of generality that it amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e. data gathering. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are regarded as data gathering steps necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea.
The limitation(s) regarding “an electronic control unit” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim limitation is a generic computer component performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims:
-Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field;
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b);
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c); or
-Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) data gathering functions.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a cooling circuit” is/are seen as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Linking a judicial exception to a technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept. Similarly, with regards to the additional element(s) of “a sensor assembly” is/are viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, such as mere data gathering in a conventional way and, therefore, does not provide an inventive concept. Similarly, with regards to the additional element(s) of “an electronic control unit” is/are view as a generic computer component performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well- understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) as evidenced by: Fujioka (US 20180241058 A1); Yajima (US 20250116443 A1); Fortin et al. (US 20210148780 A1); and Wang (US 20120105220 A1).
Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claims fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception because the limitation regarding “a cooling circuit,” “a sensor assembly,” and “an electronic control unit” can be viewed as a field of use, necessary data gathering, and any device and do not impose a meaningful limitation describing what problem is being remedied or solved.
The Independent claim(s) 15 is also rejected under 35 USC 101, because they contain limitations substantially similar to the independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-19 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additionally recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there are no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claims significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Claims 2-3, 8, 12-13, and 18 recite limitations regarding data gathering steps and insignificant application necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea and thus are not significantly more than the abstract idea and viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by the prior art shown above.
Claims 4-7, 9, and 16-17 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea, such as an “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts”, and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 10-14, and 19 recites limitation regarding generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a field of use or technological environment. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, fails to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, 7, 9-10, 12, 14-15, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujioka (US 20180241058 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 15. Fujioka teaches:
An arrangement configured to detect leakage of a liquid coolant from a cooling circuit, the arrangement comprising:
a sensor assembly configured to measure an electric parameter between an inlet and an outlet of the cooling circuit (See Fig. 1, para[0026]: A portion of the coolant supply pipe 120 on the downstream side of the water pump 125 is coupled with a first end of an intercooler water supply pipe 150. A second end of the intercooler water supply pipe 150 is coupled with the coolant discharge pipe 110. An electric leakage detector (illustration omitted) adapted for detecting an insulation voltage value is provided at a position (measurement point K2 illustrated in FIG. 1) where the intercooler 151 is provided.),
the electric parameter being dependent on an amount of liquid coolant present between the inlet and the outlet (See para[0029]: When a coolant leak occurs, the insulation voltage value at each of the measurement points (K1, K2, K3) fluctuate in accordance with the amount of coolant leak.),
wherein the sensor assembly comprises a pair of probes (See para[0029]: When a coolant leak occurs, the insulation voltage value at each of the measurement points (K1, K2, K3) fluctuate in accordance with the amount of coolant leak.), and
an electronic control unit configured to receive data comprising the measured electric parameter from the sensor assembly and to determine whether the measured electric parameter between the inlet and the outlet is indicative of a leakage of liquid coolant from the cooling circuit (See Fig. 1 and para[0029]: When a coolant leak occurs, the insulation voltage value at each of the measurement points (K1, K2, K3) fluctuate in accordance with the amount of coolant leak. Accordingly, the coolant leak can be determined by detecting the fluctuation of the insulation voltage value.).
Regarding Claim 2. Fujioka teaches:
The arrangement of claim 1,
wherein the pair of probes comprises a first probe configured to be positioned in the inlet of the cooling circuit (See Fig. 1 and para[0026]: The coolant flowing through the coolant supply pipe 120 flows into the intercooler 151 through the intercooler water supply pipe 150. In the present embodiment, an electric leakage detector (illustration omitted) adapted for detecting an insulation voltage value is provided at a position (measurement point K2 illustrated in FIG. 1) where the intercooler 151 is provided.) and
a second probe configured to be positioned in the outlet of the cooling circuit (See Fig. 1 and para[0028]: the insulation voltage value measurement point K1 (where the metal pipeline 110a is provided in the coolant discharge pipe 110.)).
Regarding Claim 3. Fujioka teaches:
The arrangement of claim 2,
wherein the sensor assembly is a voltage sensor assembly (See para[0023]: In the present embodiment, an electric leakage detector (illustration omitted) adapted for detecting an insulation voltage value (voltage measurement value).).
Regarding Claim 7. Fujioka teaches:
The arrangement of claim 1,
wherein the electronic control unit is configured to determine whether the measured electric parameter between the inlet and the outlet is indicative of a leakage by using predetermined reference data relating the measured electric parameter to an amount of liquid coolant (See Fig. 3 and para[0009]: The control unit is configured to determine a coolant leak when the insulation voltage value detected by the insulation voltage detector is larger than the insulation voltage value obtained when an ignition was turned off a last time.).
Regarding Claims 9 and 17. Fujioka teaches:
The arrangement of claim 1 or the method according to claim 15,
wherein the electronic control unit is further configured to determine an amount of liquid coolant leakage from the cooling circuit based on the measured electric parameter (See Fig. 3 and para[0028] - para[0029]: When the amount of coolant leak further increases, and the coolant level decreases to the state where the level of the coolant is short of the measurement point K3 (less than the coolant level C illustrated in FIG. 2), no conductive substance is present (no coolant is present) at the measurement point K3.).
Regarding Claims 10 and 19. Fujioka teaches:
The arrangement of claim 1 or the method according to claim 15,
wherein the arrangement is configured to be used for detecting leakage from the cooling circuit while liquid coolant is circulated through the cooling circuit (See Fig. 1 and para[0023] – para[0024]: As described later, as the circulating state of the coolant flowing through the coolant circuit 100 changes, the insulation voltage value at the measurement point fluctuates. Accordingly, based on such fluctuation of the insulation voltage value, a coolant leak or a level of the coolant can be determined.).
Regarding Claim 12. Fujioka teaches:
A cooling system comprising a cooling circuit having an inlet and an outlet, and the arrangement of claim 1,
the first probe being positioned in the inlet (See Fig. 1 and para[0026]: The coolant flowing through the coolant supply pipe 120 flows into the intercooler 151 through the intercooler water supply pipe 150. In the present embodiment, an electric leakage detector (illustration omitted) adapted for detecting an insulation voltage value is provided at a position (measurement point K2 illustrated in FIG. 1) where the intercooler 151 is provided.) and
the second probe being positioned in the outlet (See Fig. 1 and para[0028]: the insulation voltage value measurement point K1 (where the metal pipeline 110a is provided in the coolant discharge pipe 110.)).
Regarding Claim 14. Fujioka teaches:
A vehicle comprising the cooling system according to claim 12 (See Fig. 1 and para[0020]: The fuel cell cooler illustrated in FIG. 1 is mounted on vehicles such as a fuel cell powered vehicle (FCHV), for example. The fuel cell cooler functions as an onboard power source system of such a fuel cell vehicle.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujioka (US 20180241058 A1) as applied to claims 1 or 15 above, and further in view of Yajima (US 20250116443 A1).
Regarding Claims 4 and 16. Fujioka is silent as to the language of:
The arrangement of claim 1 or the method according to claim 15,
wherein the electronic control unit is configured to determine whether the measured electric parameter between the inlet and the outlet is indicative of a leakage by using a model of the cooling circuit to determine an amount of liquid coolant within the cooling circuit.
Nevertheless Yajima teaches:
wherein the electronic control unit is configured to determine whether the measured electric parameter between the inlet and the outlet is indicative of a leakage by using a model of the cooling circuit to determine an amount of liquid coolant within the cooling circuit (See Fig. 6, Fig. 7, and para[0098] – para[0105]: Therefore, the electrostatic capacitance C varies depending on the electrode area S. A width d of the cylindrical reservoir 460 has a fixed value. Therefore, the electrode area S is proportional to a liquid level height h of the refrigerant R. Therefore, by measuring the electrostatic capacitance C and the temperature of the refrigerant R and using other eigenvalues, the liquid level height h of the refrigerant R can be calculated, and the refrigerant amount can be calculated.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujioka wherein the electronic control unit is configured to determine whether the measured electric parameter between the inlet and the outlet is indicative of a leakage by using a model of the cooling circuit to determine an amount of liquid coolant within the cooling circuit such as that of Yajima. Yajima teaches, “therefore, the refrigerant amount measurement system can clarify a leakage amount of the refrigerant in the first refrigerant circuit without generating an additional refrigerant amount or a pressure loss” (See para[0006]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Fujioka, because using a model to determine the amount of coolant would have helped to determine the amount of coolant leaked without losing system pressure, as recognized by Yajima.
Regarding Claim 5. Fujioka is silent as to the language of:
The arrangement of claim 4,
wherein the model is a mathematical model which describes the amount of liquid coolant within the cooling circuit as a polynomial function of the electric parameter measured between the inlet and the outlet.
Nevertheless Yajima teaches:
wherein the model is a mathematical model which describes the amount of liquid coolant within the cooling circuit as a polynomial function of the electric parameter measured between the inlet and the outlet (See Fig. 6, Fig. 7, and para[0098] – para[0105]: FIG. 7 is a diagram showing a relationship between an electrostatic capacitance C and a liquid level height h of the refrigerant R in accordance with the temperature. The dielectric constant ε of the refrigerant R decreases at a high temperature and increases at a low temperature.
PNG
media_image2.png
33
185
media_image2.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 modify Fujioka wherein the model is a mathematical model which describes the amount of liquid coolant within the cooling circuit as a polynomial function of the electric parameter measured between the inlet and the outlet such as that of Yajima. Yajima teaches, “therefore, the refrigerant amount measurement system can clarify a leakage amount of the refrigerant in the first refrigerant circuit without generating an additional refrigerant amount or a pressure loss” (See para[0006]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Fujioka, because using a model to determine the amount of coolant would have helped to determine the amount of coolant leaked without losing system pressure, as recognized by Yajima.
Regarding Claim 6. Fujioka is silent as to the language of:
The arrangement of claim 4,
wherein the electronic control unit is configured to detect a leakage of the liquid coolant from the cooling circuit by comparing the determined amount of liquid coolant to a threshold value.
Nevertheless Yajima teaches:
wherein the electronic control unit is configured to detect a leakage of the liquid coolant from the cooling circuit by comparing the determined amount of liquid coolant to a threshold value (See para[0109]: The measurement calculator 471 may determine whether the refrigerant R has leaked on the basis of… the difference between the measured refrigerant amount and the refrigerant charge amount at the start of use.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujioka wherein the electronic control unit is configured to detect a leakage of the liquid coolant from the cooling circuit by comparing the determined amount of liquid coolant to a threshold value such as that of Yajima. Yajima teaches, “As a result, the refrigerant amount measurement system 4 can reduce a burden of work of clarifying the leakage amount of the refrigerant R” (See para[0109]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Fujioka, because comparing the amount of liquid coolant to a threshold would have helped to clarify the amount of coolant leaked, as recognized by Yajima.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujioka (US 20180241058 A1) as applied to claims 1 or 15 above, and further in view of Fortin et al. (US 20210148780 A1).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18. Fujioka is silent as to the language of:
The arrangement of claim 1 or the method according to claim 15,
wherein the sensor assembly is configured to continuously monitor the electric parameter between the inlet and the outlet, or
to measure the electric parameter between the inlet and the outlet with a predetermined frequency.
Nevertheless Fortin teaches:
wherein the sensor assembly is configured to continuously monitor the electric parameter between the inlet and the outlet, or
to measure the electric parameter between the inlet and the outlet with a predetermined frequency (See para[0023]: The controller 224 may repeatedly compute changes in the amplitude of the output voltage signal by computing a difference between the amplitudes measured after a fixed time interval (e.g., 5 seconds).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujioka to measure the electric parameter between the inlet and the outlet with a predetermined frequency such as that of Fortin. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Fujioka, because measuring at a predetermined frequency would have helped to determine a change in output voltage, as recognized by Fortin.
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujioka (US 20180241058 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (US 20120105220 A1).
Regarding Claim 11. Fujioka is silent as to the language of:
The arrangement of claim 1,
wherein the cooling circuit is configured for cooling of a battery pack.
Nevertheless Wang teaches:
wherein the cooling circuit is configured for cooling of a battery pack (See para[0004]: Coolant leakage is an important parameter for a vehicular propulsion system battery, as it can lead to both a decrease in the efficiency of the battery thermal system as well as an increased likelihood that the system will overheat. Coolant leakage can also create a short circuit for the entire system.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujioka wherein the cooling circuit is configured for cooling of a battery pack such as that of Wang. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Fujioka, because cooling a battery pack would have helped to decease the likelihood of a battery overheating, as recognized by Wang.
Regarding Claim 13. Fujioka teaches:
having an inlet and an outlet for circulating liquid coolant through the cooling circuit, and the arrangement of claim 1 configured to detect leakage of the liquid coolant from the cooling circuit (See Fig. 1, para[0026]: A portion of the coolant supply pipe 120 on the downstream side of the water pump 125 is coupled with a first end of an intercooler water supply pipe 150. A second end of the intercooler water supply pipe 150 is coupled with the coolant discharge pipe 110. An electric leakage detector (illustration omitted) adapted for detecting an insulation voltage value is provided at a position (measurement point K2 illustrated in FIG. 1) where the intercooler 151 is provided.).
Fujioka is silent as to the language of:
A battery pack comprising a plurality of battery cells, a cooling circuit configured to cool the plurality of battery cells.
Nevertheless Wang teaches:
A battery pack comprising a plurality of battery cells (See para[0002]: electric vehicle is provided by one or more battery packs.),
a cooling circuit configured to cool the plurality of battery cells (See para[0004]: Coolant leakage is an important parameter for a vehicular propulsion system battery, as it can lead to both a decrease in the efficiency of the battery thermal system as well as an increased likelihood that the system will overheat. Coolant leakage can also create a short circuit for the entire system.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujioka by a battery pack comprising a plurality of battery cells, a cooling circuit configured to cool the plurality of battery cells such as that of Wang. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Fujioka, because cooling a battery pack would have helped to decease the likelihood of a battery overheating, as recognized by Wang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al. (US 20200208861 A1) discloses using a neural network model to obtain an amount of remaining refrigerant using operating parameters (See Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARTER W FERRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 8 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, Catherine T. Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/CARTER W FERRELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights