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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on November 19, 2024. Claims 19-36 are pending. Claims 19 and 25 are independent.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. FR2204786, filed on 05/19/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
first connection unit in claims 19, 23-25, 28-29 and 32, and
first control unit in claims 19, 25 and 27-29, and
second connection unit in claims 19-26, 28-29 and 32-34, and
second control unit in claims 19-20, 25, 28-29 and 31, and
stop device in claim 36.
In claims 19, 23-25, 28-29 and 32, the limitation “first connection unit” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
In claims 19, 25 and 27-29, the limitation “first control unit” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
In claims 19-26, 28-29 and 32-34, the limitation “second connection unit” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
In claims 19-20, 25, 28-29 and 31, the limitation “second control unit” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
In claim 32, the limitation “stop device” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In claims 19, 23-25, 28-29 and 32, the limitation “first connection unit” is disclosed as VU in figures 1 and 2, paragraphs 33 and 52-55 of the specification filed.
In claims 19, 25 and 27-29, the limitation “first control unit” is disclosed as UC_1 in figure 2, paragraphs 55-56 of the specification filed.
In claims 19-26, 28-29 and 32-34, the limitation “second connection unit” is disclosed as GU in figures 1 and 2, paragraphs 33, 55, 57 and 59 of the specification filed.
In claims 19-20, 25, 28-29 and 31, the limitation “second control unit” is disclosed as UC_2 in figure 2, paragraphs 63-64 of the specification filed.
In claim 32, the limitation “stop device” is disclosed as 41 in figure 3B, paragraph 68 of the specification filed.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the
claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the
claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s)
sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0086], line 4, “… magnetic field generated by the first” should be changed to “… magnetic field generated by the second”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leibetseder (US-20200269714-A1).
Regarding claim 19, Leibetseder teaches a method for wired charging of a vehicle (see Leibetseder, Abstract, figure 1, paragraph 128, regarding vehicle 10 in contact (wired) with ground contact unit 12, in order to charge the (vehicle) battery), said vehicle being one of a rechargeable electric vehicle and a rechargeable hybrid vehicle (see Leibetseder, figure 1, paragraph 128, regarding vehicle 10, “for example a battery-powered vehicle or a plug-in hybrid vehicle”), said method comprising automatically making an electrical connection between a plug that is connected to an electrical power supply assembly of said vehicle and a socket that is connected to an electrical power supply network to which said electrical power supply assembly is to be connected in order to charge said vehicle (see Leibetseder, figures 1 and 2a, paragraphs 7, 40, 128-130, 144-147 and 233 , regarding “the object of the invention (is) to provide a vehicle connection device (14 – plug), a ground contact unit (12 – socket), an automatic vehicle coupling system (15) as well as a method for automatically conductively connecting a vehicle contact unit to a ground contact unit that makes it possible to electrically connect a vehicle contact unit to a ground contact unit physically in an automatic way” for vehicle charging, wherein a local electricity supply grid/network is connected to ground contact unit 12 via PE (protective earth), N (neutral) and L (line/phase/live) connectors of connector 40), wherein said plug is initially housed in a housing of a first connection unit that is located on said vehicle (see Leibetseder, figure 1, paragraph 129, regarding vehicle connection device 14 (a first connection unit) mounted (housed) on the underbody of vehicle 10), said first connection unit comprising a first control unit (see Leibetseder, figures 7b, 8b and 9b, paragraph 210, regarding vehicle connection device 14 (a first connection unit) comprising control unit 100 (a first control unit)), wherein said socket is carried by a second connection unit, said second connection unit comprising a second control unit (see Leibetseder, figures 2a, paragraphs 143 and 267, regarding ground contact unit 12 (a second connection unit with socket) comprising ground control unit 38 (a second control unit)), wherein said plug and said socket comprise first and second magnetic architectures, respectively, thereby enabling said plug and socket to be magnetically coupled (see Leibetseder, figure 4, paragraphs 150-151, 212-213 and 236, regarding contact magnet 104 (a first magnetic architecture) of vehicle connection device 14 (with plug)) and magnetic element 46 (a second magnetic architecture) of ground contact unit 12 (with socket) and that as soon as in proximity of each other are attracted (plug and socket enabled to be magnetically coupled), wherein automatically making said electrical connection comprises: using an electromagnetic coil, causing said second connection unit to generate a magnetic field (see Leibetseder, figure 4, paragraphs 150-151, 212-213 and 236, regarding magnetic element 46 (for example, an electromagnetic coil) of ground contact unit 12 (second connection unit) generating a magnetic field), using said first connection unit, detecting said magnetic field generated by said second connection unit (see Leibetseder, figure 4, paragraphs 150-151, 212-213 and 236, regarding “As soon as the contact magnet 104 (of first connection unit) is in the (detected) proximity of one of the magnetic elements 46 (magnetic field generated by second connection unit), the magnetic element 46 and the contact magnet 104 attract”), and upon having detected said magnetic field, automatically releasing said plug from said housing and launching an electrical connection sequence for magnetically attracting said plug toward said socket , wherein said electrical connection sequence comprises activating said electromagnetic coil to urge said plug to connect to said socket (see Leibetseder, figures 1 and 4, paragraphs 150-151, 212-213 and 233-238, regarding “To connect the vehicle 10 to the local electricity network, i.e. to produce an electrical connection between the vehicle contact unit 64 and the ground contact unit 12, the vehicle 10 with the vehicle connection device 14 is parked above the ground contact unit 12”, wherein vehicle contact unit 64 is moved (automatically releasing) by contacting actuator 62 towards (lowering away from housing) the contact unit 12, wherein “As soon as the contact magnet 104 is in the proximity of one of the magnetic elements 46, the magnetic element 46 and the contact magnet 104 attract (performing electrical connection sequence)” and make contact).
Regarding claim 20, Leibetseder teaches the method of claim 19, including further comprising, prior to automatically making said connection, detecting a position of said vehicle with respect to said second connection unit and activating said second control unit when said vehicle has been determined to be in a stationary position (see Leibetseder, figures 1 and 4, paragraphs 150-151, 212-213 and 233-238, regarding “After the vehicle 10 has been parked (at stationary position prior to automatically making connection), the vehicle contact unit 64 is (then) moved by the contacting actuator 62 in the contact direction RK towards the ground contact unit 12, i.e. lowered vertically and the magnet is switched on (activated)”).
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.
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leibetseder (US-20200269714-A1) in view of Widmer (US-20120262002-A1).
Regarding claim 21, Leibetseder teaches the method of claim 19, except further comprising, prior to automatically making said connection, detecting that said vehicle is present close to said second connection unit and guiding said vehicle so as to bring said vehicle into a determined position with respect to said second connection unit.
However, Widmer remedies this shortfall with a teaching of guiding an electric vehicle to a charging station position using a magnetic field to determining a direction and a distance from a vehicle base from a charging base (see Widmer, Abstract, figures 15A-15C and 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s effective filing date to modify the method of wired vehicle charging of Leibetseder to further comprise the vehicle detection and guidance to a charging position of Widmer because this added functionality improves the operating range/area for a vehicle charging station for a candidate vehicle and the overall automation process to position a vehicle for charging, therefore, modified Leibetseder teaches further comprising, prior to automatically making said connection, detecting that said vehicle is present close to said second connection unit and guiding said vehicle so as to bring said vehicle into a determined position with respect to said second connection unit (see Widmer, figures 1, 15A-15C, 17 and 25, paragraphs 44, 110, 117 and 147, regarding “a charging base (CB) antenna 114 for generating a magnetic or electromagnetic near field” and vehicle sensor 1700 combined to perform method 2500 for position a vehicle for charging).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leibetseder (US-20200269714-A1) in view of Konno (US-20150328995-A1).
Regarding claim 22, Leibetseder teaches the method of claim 19, except further comprising monitoring a speed of said vehicle, thereby obtaining a monitored speed, wherein detecting said magnetic field generated by said second connection unit is carried out based at least in part on said monitored speed.
However, Konno remedies this shortfall with a teaching of whether a parking maneuver to a ground-side unit (for example, a charging station) has been initiated and/or completed before starting a charge operation based at least in part on proximity to a charging position and the monitored speed of a candidate vehicle falls below a given speed (see Konno, Abstract, figures 1 and 3, paragraphs 29 and 44).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s effective filing date to modify the method of wired vehicle charging of Leibetseder to further comprise the parking state determination based in part on monitored vehicle speed of Konno, because this added functionality improves upon charging operational safety by further validating that the vehicle is parked and not moving prior to initiating charging connectivity, therefore, modified Leibetseder enables further comprising monitoring a speed of said vehicle, thereby obtaining a monitored speed, wherein detecting said magnetic field generated by said second connection unit is carried out based at least in part on said monitored speed.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leibetseder (US-20200269714-A1) in view of Hao (US-20180194241-A1).
Regarding claim 23, Leibetseder teaches the method of claim 19, except further comprising, prior to launching said electrical connection sequence, carrying out a pre-authentication step between said first connection unit and said second connection unit, wherein said pre-authentication step comprises exchanging data via a wireless link between said connection units.
However, Hao remedies this shortfall with a teaching of a wired and/or wireless authentication system with “a first authentication device (first connection unit) disposed on an electric vehicle and a second authentication device (second connection unit) disposed on a charging apparatus communicates authentication information by way of wired communication or wireless communication such as WIFI, Bluetooth, or ZIGBEE, etc., so as to realize an automatic authorization (pre-authentication step) of the electric vehicle by the charging apparatus (see Hao, Abstract, paragraph 72).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s effective filing date to modify the method of wired vehicle charging of Leibetseder to further comprise the wired and/or wireless authentication method of Hao, because this added functionality improves upon charging operational security by verifying that a candidate vehicle is authorized for charging by the charging station, therefore, modified Leibetseder enables further comprising, prior to launching said electrical connection sequence, carrying out a pre-authentication step between said first connection unit and said second connection unit, wherein said pre-authentication step comprises exchanging data via a wireless link between said connection units.
Regarding claim 24, Leibetseder teaches the method of claim 19, except further comprising carrying out a pre-authentication step between said first connection unit and said second connection unit, wherein said pre-authentication step comprises exchanging data via a wired link between said first connection unit and said second connection unit when said plug is connected to said socket.
However, Hao remedies this shortfall with a teaching of a wired and/or wireless authentication system with “a first authentication device (first connection unit) disposed on an electric vehicle and a second authentication device (second connection unit) disposed on a charging apparatus communicates authentication information by way of wired communication or wireless communication such as WIFI, Bluetooth, or ZIGBEE, etc., so as to realize an automatic authorization (pre-authentication step) of the electric vehicle by the charging apparatus (see Hao, Abstract, paragraph 72).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s effective filing date to modify the method of wired vehicle charging of Leibetseder to further comprise the wired and/or wireless authentication method of Hao, because this added functionality improves upon charging operational security by verifying that a candidate vehicle is authorized for charging by the charging station, therefore, modified Leibetseder enables further comprising carrying out a pre-authentication step between said first connection unit and said second connection unit, wherein said pre-authentication step comprises exchanging data via a wired link between said first connection unit and said second connection unit when said plug is connected to said socket.
Regarding claims 25-31 and 33, independent claim 25 is an apparatus comprising an automatic electrical connection system used for wired charging of vehicle selected from the group consisting of an electric vehicle and a hybrid vehicle that performs all the functions of the method for wired charging of a vehicle, said vehicle being one of a rechargeable electric vehicle and a rechargeable hybrid vehicle of independent claim 19, and similarly, dependent claims 26-29 and 33 of independent claim 25 are also performing identical functions corresponding to dependent claims 21-24 and 20 of independent claim 19, respectively, while dependent claims 30-31 of independent claim 25 perform identical methods found in independent claim 19, therefore, claims 25-31 and 33 are also rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) or 35 USC § 103 for the same rationale as claims 19, 21-24, 19 (partial), 19 (partial) and 20, respectively.
Claim 32 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leibetseder (US-20200269714-A1).
Regarding claim 32, Leibetseder teaches the apparatus of claim 25, including wherein said detector is arranged in said first connection unit to detect presence of said magnetic field generated by said second connection unit and to discriminate said magnetic field from a second magnetic field, said second magnetic field being generated by said first magnetic architecture (see Leibetseder, figure 4, paragraphs 150-151, 212-213 and 236, regarding “As soon as the contact magnet 104 (of first connection unit) is in the (detected) proximity of one of the magnetic elements 46 (magnetic field generated by second connection unit), the magnetic element 46 and the contact magnet 104 attract”, wherein the attraction is based on separate/opposite magnetic fields (discriminated), otherwise same magnetic field will repel instead or attract).
Claims 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leibetseder (US-20200269714-A1) in view of Bhat (US-20210078426-A1).
Regarding claim 34, Leibetseder teaches the apparatus of claim 25, excluding wherein said detector is a first detector and said system comprises a mat and a second detector integrated into said mat, wherein said second detector is configured to detect a position of said vehicle relative to said second connection unit, and wherein said second connection unit is integrated into said mat.
However, Bhat remedies this shortfall with a teaching of a detection mat for charging an electric vehicle comprising a plurality of zoned detection coils wherein the detection mat can comprise conformable structures purposed for facilitating the operation of charging a stationary candidate vehicle, such as, for example, a fixed chock or a stop/barrier device (see Bhat, Abstract, figures 1, 2A, 3 and 6, paragraphs 65-69, regarding detection mat 600).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s effective filing date to modify the method of wired vehicle charging of Leibetseder to further comprise the detection mat of Bhat because this added functionality improves upon charging operation with further validation/confirmation of candidate vehicle alignment at the charging position of the charging station prior to commencing charging, therefore, modified Leibetseder enables wherein said detector is a first detector and said system comprises a mat and a second detector integrated into said mat, wherein said second detector is configured to detect a position of said vehicle relative to said second connection unit, and wherein said second connection unit is integrated into said mat.
Regarding claim 35, Leibetseder teaches the apparatus of claim 25, excluding wherein said detector is a first detector and said system comprises a mat, a second detector integrated into said mat, and at least one chock fixed to said mat, wherein said second detector comprises a position sensor that is integrated into said chock.
However, Bhat remedies this shortfall with a teaching of a detection mat for charging an electric vehicle comprising a plurality of zoned detection coils wherein the detection mat can comprise conformable structures purposed for facilitating the operation of charging a stationary candidate vehicle, such as, for example, a fixed chock or a stop/barrier device (see Bhat, Abstract, figures 1, 2A, 3 and 6, paragraphs 65-69, regarding detection mat 600).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s effective filing date to modify the method of wired vehicle charging of Leibetseder to further comprise the detection mat of Bhat because this added functionality improves upon charging operation with further validation/confirmation of candidate vehicle alignment at the charging position of the charging station prior to commencing charging, therefore, modified Leibetseder enables wherein said detector is a first detector and said system comprises a mat, a second detector integrated into said mat, and at least one chock fixed to said mat, wherein said second detector comprises a position sensor that is integrated into said chock.
Regarding claim 36, Leibetseder teaches the apparatus of claim 25, excluding wherein said detector is a first detector and said system comprises a mat, a second detector integrated into said mat, and at least one stop device fixed to said mat, wherein said second detector comprises a position sensor integrated into said mat at a predetermined distance from said stop device.
However, Bhat remedies this shortfall with a teaching of a detection mat for charging an electric vehicle comprising a plurality of zoned detection coils wherein the detection mat can comprise conformable structures purposed for facilitating the operation of charging a stationary candidate vehicle, such as, for example, a fixed chock or a stop/barrier device (see Bhat, Abstract, figures 1, 2A, 3 and 6, paragraphs 65-69, regarding detection mat 600).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s effective filing date to modify the method of wired vehicle charging of Leibetseder to further comprise the detection mat of Bhat because this added functionality improves upon charging operation with further validation/confirmation of candidate vehicle alignment at the charging position of the charging station prior to commencing charging, therefore, modified Leibetseder enables wherein said detector is a first detector and said system comprises a mat, a second detector integrated into said mat, and at least one stop device fixed to said mat, wherein said second detector comprises a position sensor integrated into said mat at a predetermined distance from said stop device.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached form PTO-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER NING whose telephone number is (408) 918-7664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Peter D. Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
/P.Y.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
April 1, 2026
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661