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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a battery balancing and calibration module, wherein execution of the battery balancing and calibration module by one or more processors configures one or more computing devices to” perform the subsequently recited functions.
The term “module” is considered a generic placeholder that does not, by itself, connote sufficiently definite structure for performing the recited functions. The limitation is therefore interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification for performing the recited battery balancing and calibration functions includes processor 612 and/or processor 652 executing programming implementing battery balancing and calibration protocol 500 according to the algorithm illustrated in FIG. 5 and described in paras 0115–0130, and equivalents thereof.
Accordingly, for purposes of examination, the limitation “battery balancing and calibration module” is construed to cover the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10, 12, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “connecting a power conversion system (PCS) to the plurality of energy storage nodes.” However, claim 9, from which claim 10 depends, does not previously recite or provide antecedent basis for “the plurality of energy storage nodes.” Claim 9 recites an “energy storage system” and “at least one component of interest,” but does not introduce a plurality of energy storage nodes. Accordingly, it is unclear what structure is intended by “the plurality of energy storage nodes.”
Claim 12 recites “a memory accessible to the at least one processor of the control system.” However, claim 9 recites “a processor in a control system” and does not previously introduce “at least one processor.” Accordingly, “the at least one processor” lacks proper antecedent basis, rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
Claim 17 recites “determine an implementation of at least one of the battery balancing or calibration module of a control system,” but subsequently refers to “the at least one battery balancing or calibration protocol.” Claim 17 initially introduces “a battery balancing and calibration module,” but does not clearly introduce a battery balancing or calibration protocol. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the claimed determination concerns implementation of the recited module, a balancing protocol, a calibration protocol, or some combination thereof. Claim 17 further recites “the processor is further configured to,” whereas the claim previously introduces “one or more processors.” Thus, “the processor” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 18 recites “the processor further implements the at least one battery balancing or calibration protocol across an entirety of the plurality of nodes of the energy storage system.” However, claim 17 does not previously recite or define “a plurality of nodes.” Accordingly, “the plurality of nodes” lacks antecedent basis, and it is unclear which elements of the energy storage system constitute the recited plurality of nodes. Claim 18 also depends from claim 17 and therefore inherits the indefiniteness associated with “the processor” and “the at least one battery balancing or calibration protocol.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-9, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaston et al. (US 2018/0123357 A1) in view of Li (US 2015/0231985 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 9 and 17, Beaston teaches “an energy storage system, comprising: a plurality of energy storage nodes, wherein each energy storage node includes a plurality of battery modules” by teaching a battery energy storage system (BESS) having a plurality of battery packs, wherein the battery packs include a plurality of battery cells. Beaston further teaches a battery system controller coupled to the battery packs and individual battery pack controllers for monitoring and controlling the battery cells. See, e.g., FIGS. 1C, 3-5 and claims 9-16.
Beaston further teaches “a control system comprising at least one processor coupled to the plurality of energy storage nodes and a memory configured to receive or store data and programming, wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform operations in accordance with execution of the programming.” In particular, Beaston teaches embedded CPUs/controllers and memory executing battery-management software, including a Battery Calibration Manager, Battery Balancing Manager, Battery Usage Monitor, and related battery-control functions (FIG. 1C).
Beaston teaches “measure and record operational and environmental data of at least one component of interest within the energy storage system to provide raw data” by continuously monitoring battery-cell operating information, including voltage and state-of-charge information, and maintaining/storing battery information used by the battery-management functions. Beaston further teaches monitoring the battery packs and cells for purposes of calibration and balancing. See FIG. 1C and the battery calibration/balancing disclosures.
Beaston further teaches “determine an implementation of at least one of a battery balancing or calibration protocol ... based upon an analysis of the measured raw data, wherein the implementation ... is based on a predetermined value of at least one of the measured raw data, a time interval, or an amount of energy throughput.” Beaston teaches determining whether to execute a battery calibration procedure according to recalibration triggering criteria, including: expiration of a programmable recalibration time interval; occurrence of a programmable number of battery charge/discharge cycles; and a difference between the high-SoC cell and low-SoC cell exceeding a programmable SoC percentage. When one of the recalibration criteria is satisfied, the controller sets a recalibration flag and executes the calibration procedure. Beaston likewise teaches balancing battery cells based on monitored SoC information and predetermined SoC/voltage levels. See the calibration and balancing procedures and claims 5-8 and 13-16.
Beaston further teaches “wherein when the calibration determination is a predetermined value, an operation state of the component of interest is switched to a state to implement a calibration, and the state of charge is calibrated to a desired level for the component of interest.” In response to satisfaction of a recalibration criterion, Beaston sets the recalibration flag and changes battery operation to a calibration charge/discharge procedure. The cells are charged to a known full-charge SoC and subsequently subjected to a calibration discharge, with the resulting calibration values stored and subsequently used to determine battery-cell SoC. Beaston also expressly teaches that calibration charging and discharging instructions may be active while the energy-storage system is in an idle state. See claims 2-8 and 10-16.
Beaston further teaches “wherein when the balancing determination is a predetermined value, an operation state of the component of interest is switched to a state to implement a balancing, and the state of charge is balanced to a desired state.” Beaston teaches monitoring the SoC of individual cells and selectively charging or discharging individual cells using the balancing circuitry. During charging, for example, when a cell reaches a predetermined SoC or voltage level, its balancing resistor is employed to limit charging, and cells above predetermined SoC/voltage levels can be discharged using the balancing resistors until the cells reach the desired SoC/voltage level. See FIG. 1C and the battery balancing procedures.
Beaston, however, does not expressly teach the claimed determination in terms of “compare a previously acquired value for a state of charge ... to values derived from at least one of the measured raw data, the time interval, or the amount of energy throughput” for providing the recited calibration and balancing determinations.
Li teaches this feature. Li teaches measuring battery voltage, current, temperature, and SoC and determining SoC from measured battery information (paras 0023-0026, 0052; FIGS. 2 and 4). Li further teaches obtaining two separate SoC values at different times and determining battery throughput by integrating measured current over the intervening time period, expressly relating the two SoC values to the amount of battery throughput (para 0053). Li additionally teaches storing battery throughput and SoC-related information in nonvolatile memory for use during a subsequent operating cycle (paras 0054-0055).
Li also teaches making battery-management determinations from predetermined time and throughput criteria. Specifically, Li compares battery throughput TP to a throughput threshold and elapsed time to a calibrated time; the throughput is incremented using measured current and sampling time, and when the applicable criteria are met, a subsequently obtained battery value is stored and used in the battery determination (paras 0086-0089; FIG. 5).
Li further teaches the claimed balancing determination by determining cell SoCs and initiating cell balancing when the magnitude of the difference between cell SoCs exceeds a predetermined value. Li thereafter terminates balancing when the SoC difference becomes less than the predetermined value. Li also permits balancing at a scheduled time and actively changes battery operation when necessary to obtain sufficiently accurate SoC values for the balancing determination (paras 0067-0075; FIG. 8). Li expressly teaches that active excitation can include operating the battery pack in a manner that satisfies the required conditions, including commanding other devices or subsystems to provide power to or receive power from the battery (para 0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Beaston's battery calibration and balancing control system to employ Li's technique of using previously determined SoC information together with subsequently measured battery data, elapsed time, and/or energy throughput and predetermined thresholds to determine when calibration or balancing should be performed. Both references concern improving the accuracy and management of battery SoC and maintaining balanced battery cells. Such a modification would have predictably allowed Beaston's controller to make calibration and balancing determinations based on battery operating history and measured battery usage rather than relying only on instantaneous SoC/voltage conditions, thereby improving the accuracy and reliability of the SoC calibration and balancing operations.
Regarding claim 4 and 12, Beaston and Li teach the energy storage system of claim 1 as set forth above. Li further teaches “at least one sensor arranged to measure and store the operational and environmental data in a memory accessible to the at least one processor of the control system.”
Specifically, Li teaches a Battery Energy Control Module (BECM) 76 that monitors and controls the traction battery and monitors battery characteristics including pack current 78, pack voltage 80, and pack temperature 82. Li further teaches that BECM 76 includes non-volatile memory for retaining measured battery data for subsequent use (para 0023; FIG. 2).
Li further teaches sensor modules 74 arranged to measure characteristics of one or more battery cells 72, including terminal voltage, current, and temperature, and to transfer the measured data to BECM 76 for further processing and coordination. Li additionally teaches that the sensor-module functionality may be incorporated into BECM 76 such that the BECM processes the raw measurement signals (para 0024; FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the battery control system of Beaston, as modified by Li, with Li’s sensor modules and controller-accessible memory for measuring and storing battery operational and environmental data. Such a modification would have predictably provided the controller with measured battery information needed to determine battery condition and accurately perform the calibration and balancing operations discussed with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 5 and 13, Beaston and Li teach the energy storage system of claim 4 as set forth above. Li further teaches “the at least one sensor is arranged to measure at least one of voltage, current, temperature or state of charge from the at least one component of interest of the energy storage system.”
Specifically, Li teaches that Battery Energy Control Module (BECM) 76 monitors battery pack characteristics including pack current 78, pack voltage 80, and pack temperature 82. Li further teaches sensor modules 74 arranged to measure battery-cell characteristics, including terminal voltage, current, and temperature, and to provide the measurements to BECM 76 for processing (paras 0023-0024; FIG. 2).
Li also teaches determining state of charge from measured battery information. In particular, Li teaches that battery-pack SoC may be calculated by integrating measured battery current over time, and further teaches determining SoC from the relationship between open-circuit voltage and SoC (paras 0026, 0029; FIG. 4).
Accordingly, Li teaches sensing voltage, current, and temperature directly and determining SoC from the sensed battery information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the sensors of the battery energy storage system of Beaston, as modified by Li, to measure voltage, current, temperature, and/or SoC-related information as taught by Li, because such battery parameters provide conventional indications of battery condition and permit the controller to accurately determine battery state and perform the balancing and calibration operations discussed with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6 and 14, Beaston and Li teach the energy storage system of claim 1 as set forth above. Beaston further teaches “the at least one battery balancing or calibration protocol is implemented across an entirety of the plurality of nodes of the energy storage system or a subset of components including multiple energy storage nodes.”
Specifically, Beaston teaches a BESS having multiple battery packs, each battery pack including multiple battery cells and an associated battery pack controller and balancing circuitry. Beaston’s balancing process polls multiple battery modules for voltage measurements and controls charging or discharging of the modules based on their measured voltages. For example, FIG. 32 teaches applying shunt resistors to individual battery modules whose voltage exceeds a discharge threshold and operating a balancing charger to provide energy to all battery modules when any module is below a charging threshold.
Accordingly, Beaston teaches implementing the balancing operation across multiple battery modules of the energy storage system, while selectively acting upon a subset of those modules that require discharge and collectively charging multiple modules that require additional energy. Thus, the balancing protocol may be applied to the battery system as a whole or selectively to multiple components within the system.
Li further teaches balancing a plurality of battery cells according to their respective states of charge when the magnitude of the SoC difference between cells exceeds a predetermined value, thereby further teaching application of a balancing protocol across multiple battery components rather than merely a single isolated cell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the balancing and calibration operations of Beaston, as modified by Li, across all battery nodes requiring balancing or across a selected subset of multiple battery nodes, because both references teach evaluating multiple battery components and selectively balancing those components whose operating values fall outside desired conditions. Such implementation would have predictably allowed the controller to balance only the affected portion of the battery system when appropriate, while also permitting system-wide balancing when required.
Regarding claim 7, 15 and 19, Beaston and Li teach the energy storage system of claim 1 as set forth above. Beaston further teaches “when the determination is to implement the at least one of the battery balancing or the calibration protocol, the processor is further configured to change an operation for the component of interest to permit the implementation.” In particular, Beaston teaches polling individual battery modules and, when a particular module exceeds a predetermined discharge threshold, selectively applying a shunt resistor to that battery module to discharge energy therefrom. Beaston likewise teaches turning on or maintaining a balancing charger when battery-module voltages fall below a predetermined charge threshold (FIG. 32).
Thus, Beaston teaches changing the operating condition of an identified battery component by selectively charging or discharging that component so that the balancing operation may be performed.
Beaston further teaches “adjust an operation of a remainder of the energy storage system to calibrate for a time period of the implementation of the protocol for the at least one component.” Specifically, while an individual battery module may be selectively discharged through its respective shunt resistor, Beaston teaches operating the balancing charger to provide energy to the remaining battery modules based on their respective measured voltages, and continuing the balancing process until the battery-module voltages are within an acceptable range (FIG. 32). Accordingly, Beaston teaches contemporaneously modifying the operation of other components of the battery system while a selected component undergoes balancing.
Li further teaches changing overall battery-system operation when conditions required for accurate balancing are not satisfied. Li teaches actively modifying battery power demand to create the excitation conditions necessary for determining accurate SoC values and performing cell balancing, while expressly configuring the modification so as not to affect vehicle acceleration. Thus, Li teaches coordinating the operation of the remainder of a system while modifying operation of the battery for the time required to perform the balancing-related procedure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the battery control system of Beaston, as modified by Li, such that when a selected battery component is placed into a charging, discharging, calibration, or balancing condition, the controller correspondingly adjusts operation of the remaining battery components for the duration of that procedure. Such coordinated control would have predictably permitted the selected component to undergo the required balancing or calibration operation while maintaining appropriate operation and energy distribution among the remainder of the energy storage system.
Regarding claim 8, 16 and 20, Beaston and Li teach the energy storage system of claim 1 as set forth above. Li further teaches “wherein in the battery balancing, each component and subcomponent of the energy storage system is adjusted to have a same or approximately a same state of charge (SoC) for a given time.”
Specifically, Li teaches that, during repeated charge and discharge cycles, the state of charge of individual battery cells may differ from cell to cell and that, to optimize battery usage, “it is desirable that the state of charge of the cells be equalized.” Li further teaches that cell balancing is used to equalize the states of charge of the cells.
Li additionally teaches balancing a plurality of battery cells according to their respective SoC values when the magnitude of the SoC difference between the cells exceeds a predetermined value. The balancing operation is terminated when the magnitude of the SoC difference between the cells becomes less than the predetermined value, thereby bringing the individual cell SoCs to the same or approximately the same state of charge within the permitted balancing tolerance. See claims 5 and 8-11.
Beaston likewise teaches a battery pack cell balancer that adjusts the amount of energy stored in individual cells and is controlled by the battery pack controller to control the state of charge of the cells, further supporting the use of cell-level balancing within the larger energy storage system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the battery balancing operation of Beaston, as modified by Li, to adjust the individual battery components and subcomponents toward the same or approximately the same SoC as taught by Li, because equalizing the SoC of the cells would have predictably reduced cell-to-cell imbalance and improved utilization and performance of the battery system.
Claims 2-3 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaston (US 2018/0123357 A1) in view of Li (US 2015/0231985 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beaston ’505 (US 2021/0083505 A1).
Regarding claim 2 and 10, Beaston and Li teach the energy storage system of claim 1 as set forth above, but do not as clearly teach “a power conversion system (PCS) connected to the plurality of energy storage nodes and an external grid system including an energy source and a connected load, wherein the power conversion system is configured to convert bi-directionally between direct current (DC) and alternating current (AC) power.”
Beaston ’505 teaches a microgrid power system including a stabilizing battery system 112 coupled to a power distribution network through power conversion systems PCS1 and PCS2, with the power distribution network further coupled to an external AC power source 110 and load centers 104. FIGS. 1A-1D depict the stabilizing battery system 112 connected through PCS1/PCS2 and transformers T1/T2 to the microgrid distribution system, while the distribution system supplies the connected load centers 104.
Beaston ’505 further teaches that the battery system operates as an energy-storage source within the microgrid such that electrical energy may be supplied from the AC power system to the battery system for charging and electrical energy stored in the battery system may be supplied back through the power conversion system to the AC distribution system and connected loads. Thus, Beaston ’505 teaches a PCS providing bidirectional conversion between DC power associated with the battery energy-storage system and AC power associated with the external power system. See FIGS. 1B-1E.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the battery energy storage system of Beaston, as modified by Li, to include the grid-connected power conversion arrangement taught by Beaston ’505, such that the energy storage nodes are coupled through a bidirectional PCS to an external AC power system having an energy source and connected loads. Such a modification would have predictably enabled the battery energy storage system to receive power from the external AC system for charging and to return stored battery power to the AC system or connected loads, thereby facilitating conventional grid-connected charging, discharging, and power-support operation.
Regarding claim 3 and 11, Beaston and Li teach the energy storage system of claim 1 as set forth above, but do not as clearly teach “the plurality of energy storage nodes is arranged into a collection of nodes, each collection being paired with a distributed power conversion system to constitute a battery core.”
Beaston ’505 teaches a modular battery energy storage architecture in which battery packs are organized into battery strings and controlled at the string level. FIG. 45, for example, shows a plurality of battery packs arranged under a string controller, with an array or system controller coordinating the battery strings. Beaston ’505 further depicts multiple battery strings within the energy storage system, as shown in FIG. 48B by String 1, String 2, and String 3.
Beaston ’505 further teaches a string control board associated with the battery string and interfacing between battery terminals and a PCS. FIG. 30 expressly shows a String Control Board 3000 having Bat+ and Bat− connections and PCS+ and PCS− connections, together with voltage sensing, current sensing, contactor control, memory, and a controller. Thus, Beaston ’505 teaches grouping a plurality of battery units into a battery string and pairing the grouped battery units with a respective power conversion interface at the string level.
Accordingly, Beaston ’505 teaches the claimed arrangement of “the plurality of energy storage nodes ... into a collection of nodes” by its grouping of battery packs into battery strings, and teaches “each collection being paired with a distributed power conversion system” by providing a PCS interface associated with the respective battery string. The combination of the grouped battery string and its associated PCS corresponds to the claimed “battery core.” The particular term “battery core” is merely a designation for the claimed combination of the collection of battery nodes and associated distributed PCS and does not require that the prior art employ the same terminology.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the battery energy storage nodes of Beaston, as modified by Li, into collections or strings and to associate each collection with a respective distributed PCS as taught by Beaston ’505. Such a modular arrangement would have predictably permitted independent control and power conversion for individual groups of battery nodes, thereby improving scalability, modularity, fault isolation, and control of the overall energy storage system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Worry et al (US 10374444) Figs. 1-4
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMEED ALIZADA whose telephone number is (571)270-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am until 5:30 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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/OMEED ALIZADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights