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 .
Remarks
Claim 1 has been amended by having claims 5-7 incorporated into them. Claim 14 has been amended by having claims 18-21 incorporated into them. As such, claim 5-7 and 18-21 have been canceled. Claims 2-4, 8-13, 15-17, and 22-26 are as previously presented. Claims 1-4, 8-17, and 22-26 are presently examined.
Status of objections and rejections
The rejection below has been modified as necessitated by the applicants claimed amendments.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US20180277802A1) and further in view of Olsson (US20130164567A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sun discloses an energy storage power supply ([0001], Sun), comprising: a housing (1001 + 1002) having an accommodation chamber (1002) ([0031], fig. 11a, Sun), the accommodation chamber being provided with a positioning portion (1108) ([0108-0123], fig. 11a and 12d, Sun);
The examiner would like to clarify that the “positioning portion” are the side walls/channels and the base of 1108 and not the entire structure, see figure 12d for reference.
Sun continues to teach the housing comprises a first casing and a second casing (1001 + 1002) [fig. 11A, Sun], wherein: the first casing and the second casing are detachably connected to each other and define a accommodation chamber [0107, 0151, Sun discloses using clips to connect the top and bottom. One would understand that the clips can allow for the top to additionally be removed]; and the positioning portion is disposed at the first casing or the second casing [0134, fig. 18a, Sun].
In regards to the limitation of “the positioning portion is integrally formed on the first casing or the second casing”. The examiner notes that "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.", see MPEP 2144.04.V.
As such, prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Sun such that the “positioning portion” was integrally formed on the first or second casing as a mater of engineering choice.
Sun continues to teach a plurality of cells (101) ([0108-0109, fig. 11, Sun), wherein each of the plurality of cells has a first end and a second end opposite to the first end (fig. 11c, Sun), the second end of the cell being provided with two electrodes (1114(i)p/1114(i)n) ([0109-0110], fig. 11, Sun), and the first end of the cell being accommodated in the positioning portion ([0121], fig. 11a and 12d, Sun); a support (1202) having a plurality of limiting grooves (1206) ([0112-0120], fig. 12a-c and e, Sun), the plurality of limiting grooves positionally corresponding to the electrodes of the plurality of cells ([0112-0120], fig. 12a-c, Sun); a busbar (1402) configured to electrically connect the plurality of cells ([0123-0128], fig. 13-14, Sun); and a positive and negative post (1003.1 and 1003.2; “port”) configured to connect the energy storage power supply to an electrical device or a charging device ([0005, 0094, 0107, 0150] fig. 10, Sun).
PNG
media_image1.png
369
854
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sun annotated fig. 12b, Sun
Sun discloses the energy storage power supply, configured to display a quantity of electricity of the energy storage power supply [0103, Sun].
Sun is silent to 1) a panel disposed on the housing and configured to display a quantity of electricity of the energy storage power supply. 2) the port being formed on the panel.
In regards to 1) and 2), Olsson discloses a battery pack with enhanced performance and safety feature for monitoring and controlling operations of the battery [abstract, Olsson]. One of these features is a display status indictor that visually displays conditions of the battery on the surface of the battery pack [0071, 0138, 0157, Olson]. Additionally, they discuss a port (3102) on the outer surface (“panel”) of the energy storage power supply [0213, fig. 31A, Olsson]. Where the port to power sources that can either receive or deliver energy is formed on an outer surface (“panel”) of the power energy storage device [[0213, fig. 31A, Olsson].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Sun such that one have one of the panels disposed on the surface of the energy storage power supply could display the conditions of the plurality of battery cells on the surface of the energy storage power supply. Doing so provides a way to visually convey to the user one or more condition elements of the battery [0157, Olsson]. One of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Sun such that a panel on the surface of the housing contained a port. Doing so can provide one with an access point to either charge or discharge the battery [0213, Olsson].
Regarding claim 4, Sun discloses the energy storage power supply, wherein the plurality of cells are each a cylindrical cell (fig. 11B, Sun), and wherein the positioning portion (1108) is a positioning groove ([0121], fig. 12d, Sun), the cylindrical cell being vertically accommodated in the positioning groove (fig. 11A, Sun).
Regarding claim 10, Sun discloses the energy storage power supply, wherein the plurality of limiting grooves (1206) expose the electrodes of the plurality of cells [fig. 13, 18c, 20g, Sun].
Regarding claim 11, Sun discloses the energy storage power supply, wherein the support (1202) s further configured to position the electrodes of the plurality of cells [fig. 12e, Sun].
PNG
media_image2.png
373
806
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 12e, Sun
Regarding claim 12, Sun discloses the energy storage power supply, wherein a plurality of busbars are provided [0124, Sun], the plurality of busbars being arranged above the plurality of limiting grooves and configured to connect electrodes of opposite polarities of adjacent cells among the plurality of cells [0124, fig. 13-14, Sun].
Regarding claim 13, Sun discloses the energy storage power device, wherein a plurality of busbars are provided [0124, Sun], the plurality of busbars being arranged above the plurality of limiting grooves and configured to connect electrodes of opposite polarities of adjacent cells among the plurality of cells [0124, fig. 13-14, Sun].
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Sun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimizu (US20110076521A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Sun discloses the energy storage power supply, wherein the positioning portion is a positioning groove [0121, fig. 12D, Sun], the plurality of cells being accommodated in the positioning groove [0121, Sun]; and wherein the energy storage power supply further comprises a reinforcement rib (1222) [0135, 0145, Sun], the reinforcement rib connecting a side wall of the positioning portion with a side wall of the accommodation chamber [0135, 0145, Sun].
Modified Sun is silent to the use of a colloid being used to fix the position of the cell.
However, Shimizu discloses a power supply accommodated in a case (10) [0042, fig. 30, Shimizu], which a positioning groove (38) accommodating the unit cell with adhesive (“colloid”) [0056, fig. 4, Shimizu], and a support provided with a plurality of limiting grooves (56) [0084, Shimizu].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Sun such that an adhesive (“colloid”) was used to fix the position of the cell in the positioning groove. Doing so can allow for one to fit and fix a unit cell in a designated space [0056, Shimizu].]
Regarding claim 3, modified Sun is silent to the cells being prismatic cells and the positioning grooves being in a square shape.
However, Shimizu discloses the use of prismatic cells [0004, 0039-0040, Shimizu], wherein the cells are accommodated in a square shaped (38) positioning groove (16) [0042, 0049, fig. 4, Shimizu].
Prior to the effective filing date, one would find it obvious to modify Sun such that it utilized and was fitted for the prismatic cells as they are a known secondary battery shape capable of being used in plurality to make battery packs with a reasonable expectation of similar results [0004, fig. 1-2, Shimizu].
One of ordinary skill within the arts would appreciate that they may substitute the type of battery in an energy storage power supply from either a cylindrical or prismatic cells and still except the energy storage power supply to function with reasonable success, see MPEP 2144
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Sun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hurst (US2008088276A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Sun is silent to an inverter received in the housing and electrically connected to the plurality of cells, the inverter being configured to convert a direct current generated by the plurality of cells into an alternating current.
However, Hurst discloses power supply module wherein an inverter electrically connected to the plurality of cells is used to direct current into alternating current [0116, 0118, Hurst].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Sun such that include an inverter. Doing so would allow for one to convert direct current into alternating current [0116, Hurst]. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill within the arts would further find it obvious to modify Sun such that the inverter was received in the housing as a matter of obvious to try, see MPEP 2143.1.E. The inverter may be located either inside or outside of the housing, either way will still result in the inverter being able to convert DC into AC. However, if the invert was received in the housing then it would have protection from outside elements.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Sun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Totman (WO2022069910A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Sun is explicitly silent to the electrodes of each of the plurality of cell passing through one of the plurality of limiting grooves.
However, Totman discloses a battery module comprising a housing and a plurality of battery cells with a positioning portion (110) and a support (109) provided with limiting grooves (207) [0047, fig. 2, 11, 13, Totman], wherein the electrode of each cell passes through the limiting groove [fig. 11, 13, Totman].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Sun such that the cell passed through the limiting groove as depicted in Totman. Doing so is a known method to insure that the cell is held in a sealing tight fashion [0044, Totman].
PNG
media_image3.png
560
757
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 13, Totman
Claim(s) 14, 17, and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US20180277802A1) and in view of Olsson (US20130164567A1) and Hurst (US2008088276A1).
Regarding claim 14, Sun discloses an energy storage power supply [0001, Sun], comprising: a housing (1001 + 1002) having an accommodation chamber (1002) [0031, fig. 11a, Sun], the accommodation chamber being provided with a positioning portion (1108) [0108-0123, fig. 11a and 12, Sun]; a plurality of cells (101) [0108-0109, fig. 11, Sun], wherein the housing comprises a first casing and a second casing (1001 + 1002) [fig. 11A, Sun], wherein: the first casing and the second casing are detachably connected to each other and define a receiving chamber [0107, 0151, Sun discloses using clips to connect the top and bottom. One would understand that the clips can allow for the top to additionally be removed]; and the positioning portion is disposed at the first casing or the second casing [0134, fig. 18a, Sun],
In regards to the limitation of “the positioning portion is integrally formed on the first casing or the second casing”. The examiner notes that "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.", see MPEP 2144.04.V.
As such, prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Sun such that the “positioning portion” was integrally formed on the first or second casing as a matter of engineering choice.
Sun continues to teach each of the plurality of cells has a first end and a second end opposite to the first end [fig. 11c, Sun], the second end of the cell being provided with two electrodes (1114(i)p/1114(i)n) [0109-0110, fig. 11, Sun], and the first end of the cell being accommodated in the positioning portion [0121, fig. 11a and 12d, Sun]; a support having a plurality of limiting grooves (1202) [0112-0120, fig. 12a-c and e, Sun], the plurality of limiting grooves positionally corresponding to the electrodes of the plurality of cells [0112-0120, fig. 12a-c, Sun]; a busbar (1402) configured to electrically connect the plurality of cells [0123-0128, fig. 13-14, Sun];
PNG
media_image1.png
369
854
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sun annotated fig. 12b, Sun
Sun discloses a positive and negative post (1003.1 and 1003.2; “port”) configured to connect the energy storage power supply to an electrical device or a charging device [0005, 0094, 0107, 0150, fig. 10, Sun].
Sun is silent 1) to a panel disposed on the housing and configured to display a quantity of electricity of the energy storage power supply. 2) the port being formed on the panel. 3) an inverter received in the housing and electrically connected to the plurality of cells, the inverter being configured to convert a direct current generated by the plurality of cells into an alternating current.
In regards to 1) and 2) , Olsson discloses a battery pack with enhanced performance and safety feature for monitoring and controlling operations of the battery [abstract, Olsson]. One of these features is a display status indictor that visually displays conditions of the battery on the surface of the battery pack [0071, 0138, 0157, Olson]. Olsson additionally discuses a port (3102) on the outer surface (“panel”) of the energy storage power supply [0213, fig. 31A, Olsson]. Where the port to power sources that can either receive or deliver energy is formed on an outer surface (“panel”) of the power energy storage device [[0213, fig. 31A, Olsson].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Sun such that one have one of the panels disposed on the surface of the energy storage power supply could display the conditions of the plurality of battery cells on the surface of the energy storage power supply. Doing so provides a way to visually convey to the user one or more condition elements of the battery [0157, Olsson]. One of ordinary skill within the arts would additionally find it obvious to modify Sun such that a panel on the surface of the housing contained a port. Doing so can provide one with an access point to either charge or discharge the battery [0213, Olsson].
In regards to 3), Hurst discloses power supply module wherein an inverter electrically connected to the plurality of cells is used to direct current into alternating current [0116, 0118, Hurst].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Sun such that include an inverter. Doing so would allow for one to convert direct current into alternating current [0116, Hurst]. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill within the arts would further find it obvious to modify Sun such that the inverter was received in the housing as a matter of obvious to try, see MPEP 2143.1.E. The inverter may be located either inside or outside of the housing, either way will still result in the inverter being able to convert DC into AC. However, if the invert was received in the housing then it would have protection from outside elements.
Regarding claim 17, modified Sun discloses the energy storage power supply, wherein the plurality of cells are each a cylindrical cell [fig. 11B, Sun], and wherein the positioning portion is a positioning groove [0121, fig. 12d, Sun], the cylindrical cell being vertically accommodated in the positioning groove [fig. 11A, Sun].
Regarding claim 23, modified Sun discloses the energy storage power supply, wherein the plurality of limiting grooves expose the electrodes of the plurality of cells [fig. 13, 18c, 20g, Sun].
Regarding claim 24, modified Sun discloses the energy storage power supply, wherein the support is further configured to position the electrodes of the plurality of cells [fig. 12e, Sun].
PNG
media_image2.png
373
806
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 12e, Sun
Regarding claim 25, modified Sun discloses the energy storage power device, wherein a plurality of busbars are provided [0124, Sun], the plurality of busbars being arranged above the plurality of limiting grooves and configured to connect electrodes of opposite polarities of adjacent cells among the plurality of cells [0124, fig. 13-14, Sun].
Regarding claim 26, modified Sun discloses the energy storage power supply, wherein a plurality of busbars are provided [0124, Sun], the plurality of busbars being arranged above the plurality of limiting grooves and configured to connect electrodes of opposite polarities of adjacent cells among the plurality of cells [0124, fig. 13-14, Sun].
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modified Sun as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Shimizu (US20110076521A1).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Sun discloses the energy storage power supply, wherein the positioning portion is a positioning groove (1208) [0121, fig. 12D, Sun], the plurality of cells being accommodated in the positioning groove [0121, Sun]; and wherein the energy storage power supply further comprises a reinforcement rib (1222) [0135, 0145, Sun], the reinforcement rib connecting a side wall of the positioning portion with a side wall of the accommodation chamber [0135, 0145, Sun].
Modified Sun is silent to the use of a colloid being used to fix the position of the cell.
However, Shimizu discloses a power supply accommodated in a case (10) [0042, fig. 30, Shimizu], which a positioning groove (38) accommodating the unit cell with adhesive (“colloid”) [0056, fig. 4, Shimizu], and a support provided with a plurality of limiting grooves (56) [0084, Shimizu].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Sun such that an adhesive (“colloid”) was used to fix the position of the cell in the positioning groove. Doing so can allow for one to fit and fix a unit cell in a designated space [0056, Shimizu].]
Regarding claim 16, Modified Sun is silent to the cells being prismatic cells and the positioning grooves being in a square shape.
However, Shimizu discloses the use of prismatic cells [0004, 0039-0040, Shimizu], wherein the cells are accommodated in a square shaped (38) positioning groove (16) [0042, 0049, fig. 4, Shimizu].
Prior to the effective filing date, one would find it obvious to modify Sun such that it utilized and was fitted for the prismatic cells as they are a known secondary battery shape capable of being used in plurality to make battery packs [0004, fig. 1-2, Shimizu].
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modified Sun as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Totman (WO2022069910A1).
Regarding claim 22, modified Sun is explicitly silent to the electrodes of each of the plurality of cell passing through one of the plurality of limiting grooves.
However, Totman discloses a battery module comprising a housing and a plurality of battery cells with a positioning portion (110) and a support (109) provided with limiting grooves (207) [0047, fig. 2, 11, 13, Totman], wherein the electrode of each cell passes through the limiting groove [fig. 11, 13, Totman].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Sun such that the cell passed through the limiting groove as depicted in Totman. Doing so is a known method to insure that the cell is held in a sealing tight fashion [0044, Totman].
PNG
media_image3.png
560
757
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 13, Totman
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for details.
The applicant’s arguments span 14 pages and will be addressed in turn. Prior to that the examiner would like to point out the following:
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.", see MPEP 2111.01.II
"Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.", see MPEP 2145.VI.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant begins their arguments by citing the definition of “portable energy storage device” based off of the definition set forth by China. The examiner notes this is not persuasive as the Chinese standard for patent examination is irrelevant for the USPTO. The USPTO examines claims based off of their broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant then argues that their “power storage device” is fundamentally different than the batteries disclosed in the prior art. While applicant is allowed to be their own lexicographer one can not overcome the art used by simply arguing that the prior art does not meet their lexicography.
From the bottom half of page 2 to the bottom of page 3 applicant begins to argue the limitations of the specification. As noted above this is improper.
Pages 4 and 5 are screenshots of various battery products. Applicant argues that figure 1-1 is their “energy storage device” and that figure 1-2 is that of the prior art. The examiner does not find this persuasive as the products in figure 1-2 are only a portion of the elements depicted within the prior art and do not depict the actual art used.
Beginning on page 6, the applicant argues that the prior art cited above does not read on the claimed “energy-storage power supply”. The examiner notes that any battery device reads on an “energy-storage power supply” as a battery by its primary characteristic is a device capable of storing and supplying power.
The remainder of page 6 is the applicant arguing limitations from the specification and not limitations found within the limitations of the independent claim.
On page 7 to page 9 the applicant compares their instant application to conventional variants of their product. This is unpersuasive as it does not point to how the prior art cited in the office action fails to read on the claimed limitations.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Additionally, applicant is importing limitations from the specification
On page 10 applicant argues that Sun does not read on the following limitations:
The first is the applicant’s lexicography of an “energy-storage power device”, this is not persuasive as addressed above.
Second applicant points to the integral connection of the positioning portion and the casing as a reason for allowability (“limitation (a)”). The examiner notes "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.", see MPEP 2144.04.V.
Thirdly, applicant attacks the use reference of Olsson (“limitation (b)”, “limitation (c)”). However, in doing so their arguments are focused on attacking the references individually and do not consider the modified product. As such, this argument is unpersuasive. The examiner notes that Sun and Olsson are analogous art as they both relate to improvements towards devices containing a plurality of secondary batteries. Along with improving the use and function of the plurality of secondary batteries.
Fourthly, applicant attacks the use of the reference Hurst (“limitation (d)”). However, in doing so their arguments focus on attacking the references individually and do not consider the modified product. As such, this argument is unpersuasive. The examiner notes that Sun and Hurst are analogous art as they both relate to improvements towards devices containing a plurality of secondary batteries. Along with improving the use and function of the plurality of secondary batteries.
On page 13-14 the applicant argues allowability by comparing their product to a competitor’s product and arguing allowability based off of the products details.
Again applicant is importing limitations into the claim set.
The examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724