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 .
Interview Practice
Beginning October 2025, the USPTO is implementing an updated interview practice for patent examination: One interview per new application or RCE (Request for Continued Examination, see 37 CFR 1.114 and MPEP 706.07(h)) will generally be granted. Additional interview(s) which serve to advance prosecution may be granted with supervisory approval.
Applicants are encouraged to avail themselves of the interview available, as discussions between an Applicant and an Examiner are often indispensable to advance the prosecution of a patent application by improving the mutual understanding of specific issues therein.
To request an interview, Applicant may, preferably, contact the Examiner at the telephone number provided at the end of this Office Action and/or Applicant may file an Applicant Initiated Interview Request (AIR) form (PTOL-413A), which may be found here: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms.
It may be useful to also file an Authorization for Internet Communications form (PTO/SB/439, also found at the link provided above), which would allow the Examiner to substantively respond to Applicant using electronic communication (i.e., via email).
If an interview is desired, it is advisable to request the interview sufficiently ahead of the due date of any response to an outstanding Office Action, to allow adequate time to schedule, prepare for, and hold the interview. Submission of an Interview Agenda by Applicant is also generally required (see MPEP 713.01(IV)).
Requests for interviews after final rejection may be denied and generally will be denied in cases where the interview is merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search (see MPEP 713.09).
Preliminary Formalities
The preliminary amendment filed 12/20/2024 is noted and has been entered. Claims 1-20, including new claims 13-20 as filed therein, are under examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
A certified copy of DE 10 2022 206 513.1, filed 28 June 2022, has been received.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
It is suggested that Applicant include one or more of their inventive features in the title so as to clearly aid in indexing, classifying, searching, etc. of the invention.
Appropriately descriptive titles may result in slightly longer titles, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc. (MPEP § 606.01).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
The examiner notes that the following may not be an exhaustive list of informalities. It is suggested that the applicant thoroughly review the specification.
The Abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds the maximum permitted length. The abstract must be as concise as the disclosure permits, preferably not exceeding 150 words in length. 37 CFR 1.72(b). Here, the Abstract appears to comprise approximately 285 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The following examples of grammatical, idiomatic, and/or technical errors are given for Applicant’s benefit. The following, however, may not constitute a complete listing of errors present in the instant disclosure. Applicant is advised to review for other issues and amend accordingly.
Page 6, [0021], reference characters “3” and “4” have both been used to designate a “rotor carrier”.
Page 6, [0021], reference characters “10” and “11” have both been used to designate an “inner pole segment”.
Page 6, [0021], reference characters “10” and “11” have both been used to designate an “outer pole segment”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, each element and/or step should be separated by a line indentation. See 37 CFR 1.75(i), MPEP 608.01(m).
Regarding claim 1, line 5, the limitation “a plurality of rotor poles (7) each having a pole center (7.1)” should be more clearly written as: —a plurality of rotor poles (7), each rotor pole having a pole center (7.1)—.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “wherein the rotor sleeve (5) is fiber composite sleeve” is not grammatically correct (an article is missing).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein in at least one of the rotor poles (7) a V-shaped, C-shaped or arc-shaped magnetic layer (8) of a plurality of magnets (9) is formed” (emphasis added) appears to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed.
First, the specification fails to make clear what any of the “V shaped, C-shaped or arc-shaped magnetic layer (8)” may comprise or how such a “magnetic layer (8)” may be, specifically, “V shaped, C-shaped or arc-shaped”. As shown in Fig. 1, as the two “pocket legs 12.2” along with “central area 12.1” of “magnetic pocket 12” could be seen as forming a wide “V” shape, it is unclear if or how this shape could be termed a “layer”. However, no “C-shaped or arc-shaped magnetic layer” is shown or described.
Second, if the arrangement of multiple wide “V” shaped “magnetic pocket[s] 12” shown in Fig. 1 is indeed what the claim is referring to, then the written description only provides that all are “V shaped”—no other shape appears to be shown or adequately described. Thus, the claimed feature that “one […]” is “V-shaped” is not enabled—there appears to be enabling disclosure only for all to be “V-shaped”.
Thus, it is found that the subject matter noted above was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “wherein in all of the rotor poles (7) a V-shaped, C- shaped or arc-shaped magnetic layer (8) of a plurality of magnets (9) is formed” appears to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed. See above regarding claim 1 for further discussion.
Regarding claims 2-20, they are dependent on claim 1 and thereby inherit the deficiencies thereof.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-20, the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The structure which goes to make up the claimed apparatus must be clearly and positively specified in such a manner as to present a complete operative device.
The following examples of language failing to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are given for Applicant’s benefit. The following, however, may not constitute a complete listing of ambiguous language present in the pending claim(s).
Regarding claim 1, line 1, the limitation “A rotor (1) of an electric machine, having a rotor carrier (3) rotatable […]” is grammatically incorrect and also vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear to what element the “rotor carrier” belongs. If it is the “rotor” and not the “electric machine” to which the “rotor carrier” belongs, the limitation could be clarified as: —A rotor (1) of an electric machine, the rotor having a rotor carrier (3) rotatable […]—.
Regarding claim 1, lines 6-7, the limitation “wherein in at least one of the rotor poles (7) a V-shaped, C-shaped or arc-shaped magnetic layer (8) of a plurality of magnets (9) is formed” is vague and indefinite.
First, the phrase, especially the wording “wherein in […] is not idiomatic and is thus unclear.
Second, the claim fails to make clear what a “magnetic layer (8)” is—i.e., in what way does this comprise a “layer”? The drawings clearly show the “magnets 9” but it is unclear what the “magnetic layer (8)” is.
Third, and relatedly, the claim fails to make clear what a “V-shaped […] magnetic layer,” a “C-shaped [] magnetic layer,” or an “arc-shaped magnetic layer (8)” may comprise and how each of these may be different from the others. It appears that the disclosure may provide adequate written description for a “V-shaped [] magnetic layer” (notwithstanding the aforementioned ambiguity regarding the term “magnetic layer”) as shown in Fig. 1 (as the two “pocket legs 12.2” along with “central area 12.1” of “magnetic pocket 12” could be seen as forming a wide “V” shape—though it is unclear if or how this shape could be termed a “layer”), but no written description appears to be provided for either of the “C-shaped [] magnetic layer,” or “arc-shaped magnetic layer” as claimed, and the claim fails to provide the necessary clarity.
Regarding claim 1, lines 8-9, the limitation “the respective rotor pole (7) is divided by the magnetic layer (8) in a radial direction with respect to the rotor axis (2) into […]” is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitation “the respective rotor pole (7)” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Second, the phrase “divided by the magnetic layer (8) in a radial direction with respect to the rotor axis (2)” is unclear. The phrase “divided by the magnetic layer” is not idiomatic and the claim fails to make clear what the intended metes and bounds may be. This ambiguity is accentuated by use of the phrase “in a radial direction with respect to the rotor axis”. Said differently, the claim fails to make clear the structural relationships between the “rotor pole,” the “magnetic layer,” the “rotor axis,” and the “rotor axis”.
Third, and relatedly, the claim fails to make clear what is being measured/determined “with respect to the rotor axis”—the “divi[sion] by the magnetic layer” or the “radial direction”.
Regarding claim 1, line 10, the limitation “the respective rotor poles (7)” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim fails to make clear to what element(s) the “rotor poles” may be “respective” to.
Regarding claim 1, line 11, the limitation “between the outer pole segment (11) and the inner pole segment (10), which is provided for receiving […]” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear the referent of the term “which”.
Regarding claim 1, line 12, the limitation “and comprises a central area (12.1)” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear what element “comprises a central area (12.1)”.
Regarding claim 1, line 14, the limitation “the respective magnetic pockets (12)” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, lines 14-15, the limitation “that are arranged on opposite sides” is vague and indefinite. Specifically, the referent for the pronoun “that” has not been made clear by the claim language. It is recommended that Applicant avoid the use of pronouns (“that,” “which,” etc.) in favor of explicit recitation of the element(s) which are being described, so as to clearly and definitely set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought.
Regarding claim 1, lines 15-16, the limitation “wherein an axial cooling channel (15) is provided at pole edges (7.2) of the rotor poles (7), which is arranged between two pocket legs (12.2) of two adjacent magnetic pockets (12)” is vague and indefinite.
First, there is a discrepancy between the singular “axial cooling channel” and the plural “edges (7.2)”—the claim fails to make clear whether there is, e.g., one “channel” for each “edge” or whether there is only a single “channel” for—and located “at”—all the “pole edges”.
Second, the referent for the pronoun “which” has not been made clear by the claim language. It is recommended that Applicant avoid the use of pronouns (“that,” “which,” etc.) in favor of explicit recitation of the element(s) which are being described, so as to clearly and definitely set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought.
Regarding claim 1, lines 17-18, the limitation “wherein the rotor body (4) radially within the cooling channels (15) has a hub section (4.2)” is vague and indefinite. The limitation “the rotor body (4) radially within the cooling channels (15)” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Alternatively, the emphasized phrase is lacking a verb (e.g., —wherein the rotor body (4) is positioned radially within […]—.
Regarding claim 1, line 18, the limitation “which is provided for mechanical coupling […]” is vague and indefinite. The referent for the pronoun “which” has not been made clear by the claim language.
Regarding claim 1, line 21, the limitation “the hub portion” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, lines 21-22, the limitation “its circumferential extension” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, line 22, the limitation “each opening up into one of the cooling channels (15)” is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear what the term “each” is referring to.
Second, the phrase “opening up into” is unclear in context of the invention. Is there some sort of “opening” movement required here?
Third, the limitation “the cooling channels (15)” is recited in the plural. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the term “cooling channel” was introduced in the singular (on line 15).
Regarding claim 1, lines 23-24, the limitation “the inner pole segments (10)” is recited in the plural. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the term “inner pole segment (10)” was introduced in the singular (on line 9).
Regarding claim 1, lines 23-25, the limitation “the pre-tensioning of the rotor sleeve (5) is generated or increased by a tension of the inner pole segments (10) acting radially in an outward direction against the rotor sleeve (5)” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear what the “tension of the inner pole segments (10) acting radially in an outward direction against the rotor sleeve (5)” may comprise and how it may be generated—i.e., what causes the “tension of the inner pole segments […]”? The claim is defining one functional description (i.e., the “pre-tensioning of the rotor sleeve”) with another functional description (i.e., the “tension of the inner pole segments […]”) but it fails to make clear what actual structure(s) would be required to cause either.
The limitation recites function rather than structure. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, it must be noted that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2114(I).
To clarify the metes and bounds of the claim, it is recommended not to whole remove the functional language, but rather add/clarify what structure(s) cause the claimed functionality. This approach is usually most helpful to obviate rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) while also distinguishing Applicant’s invention from the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is generally narrative and unclear. The following specific issues are noted to assist Applicant in clarifying the intended metes and bounds.
Regarding claim 2, lines 1-3, the limitation “wherein the respective cooling channel (15) is arranged in terms of a radial layer and/or a cross-section and/or a cross-sectional shape” is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitation “the respective cooling channel (15)” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Second, the claim fails to make clear what being “arranged in terms of a radial layer and/or a cross-section and/or a cross-sectional shape” may comprise, including how each of these options may be different from the others. The disclosed invention, as illustrated in Fig. 1 appears to show only a single type of “arrange[ment]” so it is unclear i) which of these three types is illustrated and ii) which ones are not shown and for which written description has not been provided by Applicant. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) for lack of adequate written description is not being made at this time because it is unclear what Applicant is intending to claim. In their Reply, Applicant is strongly encouraged to avoid claiming feature(s) which are not shown and for which adequate written description has not been provided in the application as originally filed.
Regarding claim 2, lines 3-5, the limitation “wherein between the cooling channel (15) and the two pocket legs (12.2) of adjacent magnetic pockets (12) two rotor spokes (18) are formed” is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitation “the cooling channel (15)” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Second, the limitation is generally narrative and does not clearly set forth the structural relationships of the “two rotor spokes,” the “two pocket legs,” and the “cooling channel”.
Regarding claim 2, lines 5-7, the limitation “whose longitudinal extension (L) is respectively larger than their width (B) transverse to the longitudinal extension (L) and flexible for the clamping of the magnets (9)” is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitations “whose longitudinal extension (L),” “their width (B),” “the longitudinal extension (L),” “the clamping of the magnets (9)” are recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite. Also, the referents for the terms “whose” and “their” have not been made clear by the claim language. Explicit reference to the intended feature(s) is recommended to improve clarity.
Second, the limitation is generally narrative and unclear. For example, the claim fails to make clear what a “longitudinal extension” may comprise, including in what direction the term “longitudinal” is supposed to describe. Also, the claim fails to make clear what element(s) is/are intended to be “flexible” and how this might be achieved, and also fails to make clear what element(s) is/are intended to perform “the clamping of the magnets”.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “the respective cooling channel (15)” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Regarding claim 3, lines 2-3, the limitation “a radially outermost extension, which extends in the radial direction” is grammatically incorrect and unclear. If appropriately descriptive, the limitation could be amended as: — a radially outermost extension, the radially outermost extension extending in the radial direction—.
Regarding claim 3, lines 3-4, the limitation “extends to […] or beyond” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear where “beyond” may be. The claim fails to make clear the possible “exten[t]” of the “cooling channel (15)”. In clarifying the claim, Applicant is reminded to keep the scope of the claim in line with the written description so as to avoid any issues under 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
Regarding claim 5, lines 2-3, the limitation “an extension of the respective cooling channel (15) extends radially inward in a circumferential direction” is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitation “the respective cooling channel (15)” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Second, the limitation “extends radially inward in a circumferential direction” is unclear. Specifically, it appears to require the “channel” to “extend” in multiple different directions—i.e., both “radially inward” and “in a circumferential direction”. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “wherein in all of the rotor poles (7) a V-shaped, C- shaped or arc-shaped magnetic layer (8) of a plurality of magnets (9) is formed” (emphasis added). See above regarding the related limitation in claim 1 for further discussion.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “the central area (12.1) lies in an area of the pole center (7.1) and is configured as a bridge” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear what being “configured as a bridge” is intended to mean, including what element(s) is/are being “bridge[d]”.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “the rotor sleeve (5) is pre-tensioned for clamping the magnets (9) into the magnetic pockets (12)” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear how the “rotor sleeve” may be “pre-tensioned” as well as how the “rotor” of claim 1 is being structurally further limited by the instant claim, as required by 35 U.S.C. §112(d).
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “the extension of the respective cooling channel (15) extends radially inward in a circumferential direction because a cross section of the cooling channel (15) is formed in a triangular, V, trapezoidal, or bell shape” is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitation “the respective cooling channel (15)” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Second, the limitation “extends radially inward in a circumferential direction” is unclear. Specifically, it appears to require the “channel” to “extend” in multiple different directions—i.e., both “radially inward” and “in a circumferential direction”. Clarification is required.
Third, and relatedly, the limitation “because […]” is unclear. The claim fails to make clear the structural relationship(s) between the various features.
Fourth, the limitation “is formed in a triangular, V, trapezoidal, or bell shape” is unclear. Only a single shape for “cooling channel[s] (15)” is shown—it is unclear from the drawings what shape of those listed here is shown and ii) how other shapes may be formed. If the application as originally filed fails to provide adequate written description for all but the shape shown (which appears to be the case), the other options should be deleted from the claim so as to obviate any issues under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). Alternatively, if such shapes are known in the art, evidence supporting such should be made of record.
Regarding claims 2-20, Applicant is strongly encouraged to review the claims and, using guidance provided above, ensure the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought are clearly set forth. Whereas the Examiner has endeavored to identify specific limitations which fail to clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought, the issues identified above may not constitute a complete listing of ambiguous language present in the pending claim(s).
Regarding claims 2-20, they are dependent on claim 1 and thereby inherit the deficiencies thereof.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “the rotor sleeve (5) is pre-tensioned for clamping the magnets (9) into the magnetic pockets (12)” does not appear to further limit the “rotor” set forth in claim 1. See related rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) above for further discussion.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited all disclose a rotor of an electric machine and teach, either partially or substantially, the claimed invention as best as it can be understood, including features such as V-shaped magnetic pockets for holding permanent magnets, cooling structures including a shaft cooling channel and radial openings in a rotor shaft, and axial cooling channels within the rotor body.
However, in light of the numerous ambiguities requiring clarification, a rejection based on prior art has not been applied at this time. This should not be construed by Applicant to be an indication of allowable subject matter. Rather, as is the case in the instant application, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. MPEP 2173.06(II).
Applicant, in preparing a response, should fully consider each of the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Applicant should, in response to this Office Action, provide support for all language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. See MPEP 2163(II)(A). That is, Applicant should specifically note the page(s) and line number(s) in the original specification and/or feature(s) in the original drawing figure(s) where support for newly added claim language may be found. No new matter may be added. See 35 U.S.C. §132(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. MIKAILOFF whose telephone number is (571) 270-7894. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 10am - 6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, T.C. PATEL can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/S. MIKAILOFF/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
July 20, 2026
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights