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 .
Applicant’s response of 8/14/2026 has been entered and considered. Upon entering amendment, claims 5, 7, 11-13 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-13 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 102 rejection anticipation by Shirahashi (2019/0322177), the Applicant argues that “claim 1 requires an auxiliary power supply that is coupled to the low-voltage network at an output terminal” (Remarks, pg.7), which the Applicant contends is missing in Shirahashi. In particular, applicant argues that “Shirahashi’s diode arrangement is specifically designed to prevent the output of the second DC/DC converter 30 from reaching the low voltage load 3… Shirahashi’s second DC/DC converter 30 is expressly prevented from supplying power to the low-voltage network” and thus Shirahasi fails to disclose an auxiliary power supply “configured to be coupled to the low-voltage network (3) at an output terminal” (Remarks, pg.8). The examiner respectfully disagrees. As an initial matter, the examiner did not map the claimed “low-voltage network” to Shirahashi’s low-voltage load (3). Instead, the low-voltage network was mapped to “the output side of 20 [DC voltage converter] including the path leading from the output of 20 to low voltage load 3 and the vertical bus running through 40” (See non-final office action, dated 6/4/2026, pg.5). Further, it appears the applicant is conflating Shirahashi’s second DC/DC converter 30 not supplying power to the low-voltage network to it not being coupled to the low-voltage network. The scope of claim 1 is not “provide an output” or “directly coupled to”. That is, Claim 1 does not require the auxiliary power supply is configured to supply power to the low-voltage network nor does it require it to be “directly coupled” to the low-voltage network. Instead, claim 1 merely recites that there is a broad indirect coupling of the auxiliary power supply to the low-voltage network, which is satisfied by Shirahashi’s output of second DC/DC converter 30 corresponding to the auxiliary power supply being coupled to the low-voltage network through diode 50, the horizontal bus line connecting the diode 50 output with the diode 40 output. Accordingly, the Examiner believes the anticipation rejection of claim 1 by Shirahashi should be maintained.
With respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1, the applicant states “Accordingly, the combination of Shirahashi with Kakuno…also fails to disclose Applicant’s claimed subject matter.” (Remarks, pg.9) The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the 103 rejection is unpatentable over Kakuno (2019/0337474) in view of Shirahashi (2019/0322177) and not the other way around (See non-final office action, dated 6/4/2026, pgs.5-6). That is, applicant’s argument that “Shirahashi’s DC/DC converter 30 is expressly prevented from being coupled to the low-voltage network” (Remarks, pg. 9) is moot because Shirahashi was not relied upon for the limitation of the auxiliary power supply being coupled to low-voltage network at an output terminal. Shirahashi, instead, was relied upon for the teaching that the auxiliary power supply is configured to provide a supply voltage for the control circuit (80) of the DC voltage converter (20, pars [6, 21-25, 27-28]). The primary reference Kakuno teaches the auxiliary power supply corresponding to 20 and/or 22 of 20 coupled to the-low voltage network (see figs.1-3, pars [21-22, 28]) and further teaches the control circuit (14) of the DC voltage converter (12). While Kakuno does not teach providing a supply voltage of the control circuit of the DC voltage converter, Shirahashi does. Shirahashi teaches the auxiliary power supply (30 and/or 60) provides a supply voltage to the control circuit (80) of the DC voltage converter (20, pars [6, 21-25, 27-28]). Thus, it is the combination of references that teaches both the auxiliary power supply coupled to the low voltage network (Kakuno) and to provide a supply voltage of the DC voltage converter’s control circuit (Shirahasi). Applicant appears to admit that the limitations corresponding to the auxiliary power supply can be found in each single reference (Remarks, pgs.9-10, bridging paragraph), but argues that “neither reference teaches the claimed dual-function auxiliary power supply.” (Remarks, pgs.9-10, bridging paragraph) In response to Applicant’s piecemeal analysis of the references, it has been held that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on the combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). It is further noted that the auxiliary power supply being coupled to the high-voltage network and low-voltage network is not a “function”, it is a connection.
For the reasons discussed above, the examiner believes the rejections should be maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “…in response to… exceeds a predetermined threshold.” It should be “exceeding” a predetermined threshold.
Claim 11 recites “The electric vehicle according to claim 10, wherein a control device (14) of the DC voltage converter arrangement (1)…” Claim 11 does not use a transitional phase (i.e., “comprising”, “including”, or “having”) to indicate that the control device is actually being claimed. The claim should accordingly be amended.
Claim 11 recites “…in response to…falls below a specified threshold value.” It should be “failing” below a specified threshold value.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shirahashi (2019/0322177 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Shirahashi teaches a DC converter arrangement comprising:
a DC voltage converter (fig.1, item 20, par [15]) configured to be coupled to a high-voltage network (see fig.1, pars [15-17]; “high-voltage network” on the path between 10 and 20 noting the “high voltage load” which means it is supplied by a “high” voltage source) at a first terminal (fig.1, for e.g., left side terminal of 20) and coupled to a low-voltage network (fig.1, pars [15-17]; “low-voltage network” read on by the output side of 20 including the path leading from the output of 20 to low voltage load 3 and the vertical bus running through 40) at a second terminal (fig.1, right side terminal of 20), and
an auxiliary power supply (item 30 and/or 30, 50, pars [6, 21-25, 27]; “auxiliary power supply” read on by item 30 and/or 30, 50 as it supplies power to the control circuit 80 via 60) configured to be coupled to the high-voltage network at an input terminal (fig.1, for e.g. upper terminal of 30), to be coupled to the low-voltage network at an output terminal (fig.1, for e.g., output of 30 coupled to the low-voltage network through diode 50, the horizontal bus line connecting the diode 50 output with the diode 40 output), and, at a control circuit (80, see fig.1) of the DC voltage converter (20), to provide a supply voltage for the control circuit (80, pars [6, 21-25, 27]; “the second dc/dc converter…converts the voltage output by the output from the power source and outputs the converted voltage to the DC/DC controller”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakuno et al. (2019/0337474 A1) in view of Shirahashi (2019/0322177 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Kakuno (figs.1-3) teaches a DC converter arrangement comprising:
a DC voltage converter (figs.1-3, item 12 of 10, pars [29-30]; “dc-dc converter”) configured to be coupled to a high-voltage network (see figs.1-3, pars [21-22, 27]; the DC voltage converter is “configured to be” coupled to “a high-voltage system”) at a first terminal (for e.g., P1) and coupled to a low-voltage network (figs.1-3, pars [21-22, 28]; coupled to a low-voltage network/“low-voltage system”) at a second terminal (for e.g., P2), and
an auxiliary power supply (item 20 and/or 22 of 20, pars [38-39] and related discussion. Note: the “auxiliary power supply” is nominal and is not structurally distinguished from Kakuno’s 20 and/or 22 of 20); configured to be coupled to the high-voltage network at an input terminal (see figs.1-3, for e.g. at the filled in node/input terminal adjacent to P1), to be coupled to the low-voltage network at an output terminal (see figs.1-3, for e.g., coupled to the low-voltage network at an output terminal/ the filled in node after 10), and, a control circuit (14, see figs.1-3) of the DC voltage converter (see figs.1-3).
Kakuno does not explicitly disclose and to provide, at a control circuit of the DC voltage converter, a supply voltage for said control circuit.
Shirahashi, however, teaches it is known in the art for an auxiliary power supply (item 30 and/or 60) to provide, at a control circuit (item 80) of the DC voltage converter (20), a supply voltage for the control circuit (pars [6, 21-25, 27-28]; the control circuit 80 is provided with a supply voltage from a broad nominally labeled “auxiliary power supply” read on by 30 and/or 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kakuno to that of Shirahashi. The motivation would have been because the control circuit of the DC voltage converter needs power and Shirahashi teaches a known manner to do so, namely by providing a supply voltage to the control circuit of the DC/DC converter.
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of Kakuno in view of Shirahashi teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches having a control device (Kakuno, 24 including 24c) configured so as to activate the DC voltage converter in response to an electrical current that is emitted from the auxiliary power supply into the low-voltage network exceeds a predetermined threshold (Kakuno, pars [43, 46-49, 55]; Kakuno teaches when the current emitted from the auxiliary power supply into the low voltage network reaches a predetermined current value range that is more than a lowest threshold, 24c sends a signal to 14a to activate the DC voltage converter 12, which is at least an indirect activation of the converter 12). While the combination says an electrical current exceeding the predetermined threshold and not the electrical power, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have relied on electrical power since current is a parameter of power (P=V*I) and when the voltage is constant, current is directly proportional to power and when current increases power increases- P=V*I and I=P/V.
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination of Kakuno in view Shirahashi teaches an electric vehicle (Kakuno, par [62], Shirahashi, par [15]), having: a high-voltage network (Kakuno, figs.1-3, pars [21-22, 27]; high-voltage network/“a high-voltage system”), a low-voltage network (Kakuno, figs.1-3, pars [21-22, 28]; a low-voltage network/“low-voltage system”), and a DC converter arrangement according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakuno et al. (2019/0337474 A1) in view of Shirahashi (2019/0322177 A1) in further view of Ruppert (2021/0086629 A1).
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the auxiliary power supply is configured to provide, using an electrical voltage from the high-voltage network, a low voltage from the high-voltage network at the control circuit of the DC voltage converter (Kakuno, see figs.1-3, pars [27, 38-39], and Shirahashi, fig.1, pars [6, 21-25, 27-28]; the combination teaches the auxiliary power supply provides a low voltage by stepping down the voltage from the high-voltage side at the control circuit of the DC voltage converter) and in the low-voltage network (Kakuno, see figs.1-3, pars [27, 38-39]; Kakuno teaches the lower voltage is outputted in the low-voltage network).
The combination does not explicitly disclose the low voltage is galvanically isolated from the high-voltage network.
Ruppert (fig.3), however, teaches it is known in the art to have the low voltage galvanically isolated from the high-voltage network (par [42]; for e.g., the DC/DC converter 171 is with galvanic isolation 18, and thus provides galvanic isolation from the high-voltage network 12 to the low-voltage network 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted modified Kakuno’s auxiliary power supply read on by the dc/dc converter so that it is implemented using Ruppert’s dc/dc converter with galvanic isolation. The motivation would have been for safety and fault isolation purposes further noting that it is well-known and well-desired in the art to use a galvanically isolated converter to keep the high-voltage and low-voltage system separated while still allowing power transfer.
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 2 and further teaches wherein the auxiliary power supply is configured to set a specified target voltage in the low-voltage network within predetermined limits (Kakuno, pars [39-41]; Kakuno teaches the aux power supply is regulated and adjusted so that voltage value in the low-voltage network is brought close to the target voltage value. This reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “set to a specified target voltage”. Kakuno further teaches the aux power supply has a smaller power capacity; its allowable output power is limited and the allowable current is limited- this reads on “within predetermined limits”).
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the auxiliary power supply is configured so as to provide, using an electrical voltage from the low-voltage network, a high voltage for the high-voltage network that is galvanically isolated from the low-voltage network.
Ruppert (fig.3), however, teaches it is known in the art to provide, using an electrical voltage from the low-voltage network (30), a high voltage for the high-voltage network (12) that is galvanically isolated from the low-voltage network (pars [42-43]; for e.g., the DC/DC converter 171 is bidirectional and galvanically isolated and uses a low voltage to provide a high voltage for the high-voltage network that is galvanically isolated from the low voltage network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted modified Kakuno’s auxiliary power supply read on by the dc/dc converter so that it is implemented using Ruppert’s bidirectional dc/dc converter with galvanic isolation. The motivation for the auxiliary power supply to be galvanically isolated would have been for safety and fault isolation purposes further noting that it is well-known and well-desired in the art to use a galvanically isolated converter to keep the high-voltage and low-voltage system separated while still allowing power transfer. The motivation for the auxiliary power supply to be bidirectional would have been to present an additional option in which power from the low-voltage network may be transmitted to the high-voltage network, which makes the system more dynamic.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakuno et al. (2019/0337474 A1) in view of Shirahashi (2019/0322177 A1) in further view of Gannamaneni et al. (2022/0200464 A1).
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose having a switching device configured to open or close an electrical connection between the auxiliary power supply and the low-voltage network.
Gannamaneni (fig.1), however, teaches it is known in the art to have a switching device (S4) configured to open or close an electrical connection between the DC/DC converter (20, par [50]) and the low-voltage network (50, pars [16,53] and related discussion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to further include a switching between modified Kakuno’s auxiliary power supply and the low-voltage network. The motivation would have been to be able to selectively connect or disconnect the auxiliary power supply to the low-voltage network when needed.
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 6 and further teaches wherein the switching device is configured to open the electrical connection between the auxiliary power supply and the low-voltage network in response to the DC voltage converter being active (Kakuno, pars [46-48, 61], Gannamaneni, fig.1, pars [16, 50, 53]; Kakuno teaches when the start switch has been turned on, the DC voltage converter is active and the auxiliary power supply is not. Gannamaneni teaches the switching device S4 is open between the second DC/DC converter 20 and the low voltage network 50 while the DC voltage converter 10 is active. Thus, the combination teaches the switching device between the aux power supply and the low-voltage is configured to/capable of being open in response to the DC voltage converter being active).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakuno et al. (2019/0337474 A1) in view of Shirahashi (2019/0322177 A1) in further view of Tien et al. (2004/0030511 A1).
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1. The combination does not disclose having a first buffer element configured to be electrically coupled to the low-voltage network and to compensate for voltage fluctuations in the low-voltage network.
Tien, however, teaches it is known in the art to have a first buffer element (par [29]; decoupling capacitor reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “buffer element”) configured to compensate for voltage fluctuations (pars [8, 29]; decoupling capacitor compensates voltage drop, decreases voltage variation to maintain a stable voltage level).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of references so that the buffer element of Tien is electrically coupled to the low-voltage network in the combination of references. The motivation would have been because decoupling capacitors/buffer element are well-known and well-desired in the art to compensate for voltage fluctuations and one skilled in the art would have obviously applied a buffer element/decoupling capacitor in the combination of reference’s low-voltage network for the purpose of compensating voltage fluctuations in the low-voltage network.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakuno et al. (2019/0337474 A1) in view of Shirahashi (2019/0322177 A1) in further view of Idgunji et al. (2011/0122712 A1).
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose having a second buffer element configured to be electrically coupled to the control circuit and to compensate for voltage fluctuations in the supply voltage of the control circuit.
Idgunji, however, teaches it is known in the art to have a buffer element (40, par [85]; capacitor 40 reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of buffer element) configured to compensate for voltage fluctuations in supply voltage (par [85]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of references so that the buffer element of Idgunji 40 is electrically coupled to the control circuit of modified Kakuno. The motivation would have bene to compensate for any voltage variations in the supply voltage of the control circuit modified Kakuno (Idgunji, par [85]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakuno et al. (2019/0337474 A1) in view of Shirahashi (2019/0322177 A1) in further view of Tanaka (2001/0007419) in further view of Oh et al. (2013/0127400 A1).
Regarding Claim 11,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 10 and further teaches wherein the DC voltage converter arrangement is configured to deactivate the DC voltage converter in a parked mode of the electric vehicle (Kakuno, pars [46-47, 62] and related discussion; Kakuno teaches when the vehicle is in a parked mode and the ignition is off, deactivate the DC voltage converter 12 of 10) in response to a power consumption of consumers in the low-voltage network falls below a specified threshold (pars [25, 46-47, 55]; power is no longer supplied to the consumers/loads connected to the low-voltage network while the vehicle is parking and ignition is off results in the loads no longer consuming operating power/their consumption falls below a specified threshold value/normal operating power, deactivate the DC voltage converter 12 of 10).
The combination, in particular Kakuno teaches a plurality of controllers (Kakuno, figs.1-3, items 14 and 24) and teaches the whole system (100) deactivating the DC voltage converter (Kakuno, par [46]; see rejection analysis above). The combination does not teach a control device is configured to deactivate the DC voltage converter.
Tanaka, however, teaches a similar DC voltage converter arrangement as discussed within Kakuno and further teaches a control device (26) configured to deactivate the DC voltage converter (14) in response to the load consumption being small (par [39]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of the combination to that of Tanada. The motivation would have because deactivating the DC voltage converter is already contemplated by Kakuno and assigning that functionality to a control device as discussed within Tanaka would therefore have been a predictable implementation using a known control architecture without changing the underlying function or intended operation of Kakuno.
The combination teaches when the start/ignition switch of the vehicle is switched from an ON state to an OFF state (i.e., vehicle in parking state and ignition is off), the DC voltage converter is deactivated (Kakuno, pars [46-47, 62]). The combination does not explicitly disclose a sleep mode.
Oh, however, teaches it is known in the art that the electric vehicle enters a sleep mode when it receives an ignition off state (par [69]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have relied upon the teachings of Oh. The motivation would have been to illustrate that Kakuno’s electric vehicle being turned off in a parking state would obviously correspond to a sleep mode of the vehicle with very little power consumption. It is further noted that both parking and sleep states relate to low power consumption of the loads and thus one skilled in the art would have obviously realized the similarities between parking or sleep modes.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakuno et al. (2019/0337474 A1) in view of Shirahashi (2019/0322177 A1) in further view of Gutierrez et al. (2014/0167786 A1).
Regarding Claim 12,
Kakuno in view of Shirahashi teaches a method for operating a DC voltage converter arrangement according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), comprising the steps of:
monitoring an output of electrical current from the DC voltage converter arrangement into the low-voltage network (Kakuno, figs.1-3, items 42, 24, 28, pars [16, 35, 43, 46-49, 54-55, 61] and related discussion; i.e., monitoring when the current flowing from the DC voltage converter arrangement reaches a predetermined current value range that exceeds the lowest threshold value and when current flowing into the low-voltage network becomes lower than a threshold);
deactivating the DC voltage converter in response to the electrical current from the DC voltage converter arrangement into the low-voltage network falling below a predetermined first threshold (Kakuno, pars [35, 43, 46-49] and related discussion; Kakuno teaches when the vehicle is in a parking state and “power is no longer supplied” to the low-voltage network via 32 such that the current falls below a predetermined first threshold, the dc voltage converter 12 of 10 is deactivated/stopped);
activating the DC voltage converter in response to the electrical current from the DC voltage converter arrangement into the low-voltage network exceeding a predetermined second threshold value (Kakuno, pars [35, 43, 46-49, 55] and related discussion; Kakuno teaches when the current flowing into the low voltage network reaches a predetermined current value range that exceeds the lowest threshold value/a current surge, activating the DC voltage converter 12 of 10).
The combination teaches monitoring of electrical current (Kakuno, pars [16, 35, 43, 46-49, 61] and related discussion). The combination does not explicitly disclose that monitoring the electrical current would thus entail and correspond to monitoring of electrical power.
Gutierrez, however, teaches it is known in the art that monitoring the electrical current would thus correspond to monitoring of electrical power (abstract, par [6] and related discussion).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of the combination to that of Gutierrez. The motivation would have been because power is a known function of current and voltage and deriving monitored power from the current would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 13,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 12 and further teaches wherein the DC voltage converter (11) is deactivated only in response to the electric vehicle having the DC voltage converter arrangement (1) is in a predetermined operating mode (Kakuno, figs.1-3, [43, 46-49, 62]; Kakuno teaches only in response to the vehicle being in a predetermined operating mode/parking mode, the DC voltage converter 12 of 10 is deactivated/stopped and the auxiliary power supply 22 is ON).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASEM MOURAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7770. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached at (571)270-3684. 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.
/RASEM MOURAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2836 /Menatoallah Youssef/SPE, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights