Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 14/911,877

AUTOMATED BATTERY INDICATION AND FEEDBACK SYSTEM BASED ON ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND USE DATA FOR IMPROVED MANAGEMENT AND RELIABILITY

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Feb 12, 2016
Examiner
YEUNG LOPEZ, FEIFEI
Art Unit
2899
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Koninklijke Philips N V
OA Round
12 (Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
13-14
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
858 granted / 1060 resolved
+12.9% vs TC avg
Minimal -3% lift
Without
With
+-3.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
1107
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
52.0%
+12.0% vs TC avg
§102
26.1%
-13.9% vs TC avg
§112
17.6%
-22.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1060 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Feature “an estimate of the exact amount of time” in claims 1, 9, and 20, is understood to mean an estimate of the amount of time for the purpose of the current Office Action. Claims 1-3,7-10,13,15-18,20,21, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson et al (PG Pub 2013/0164567 A1), Neumeyer (PG Pub 2012/0130660 A1), and Ludtke (PG Pub 2009/0033277 A1). Regarding claim 1, Olsson teaches a battery (figs. 1-4) for powering a device (device 3500, fig. 35, for example; portable devices, paragraphs [0002][0003][0009]), the battery comprising: means (“electronic circuit”, paragraphs [0011][0073][0078]; 160 in paragraphs [0112]; process 2300 in paragraph [0192]; claim 33 of Olsson) for determining an end of life indicator of a condition of the battery relative to an end of life condition of the battery; means (“electronic circuit”, paragraphs [0011][0073][0078]; 160 in paragraphs [0112]; process 2300 in paragraph [0192]; claim 33 of Olsson) for determining a runtime indicator of an exact amount of time or an estimate of the exact amount of time the battery can be used to power the device before needing to be at least one of recharged or replaced prior to the end of life condition of the battery; and a display (RGB LEDs 420, paragraph [0128]; visual indication by an LED, paragraph [0073]) on the battery (aligned with apertures 218 in fig. 2, paragraph [0128]; fig. 2 shows battery enclosure 100, paragraph [0114]) wherein the display is configured to display the end of life indicator, as determined by the battery, of the condition of the battery relative to the end of life condition of the battery (“electronic circuit”, paragraphs [0011][0073][0078]; 160 in paragraphs [0112]; process 2300 in paragraph [0192]; claim 33 of Olsson), and wherein the display is further configured to display the runtime indicator of the state of charge of the battery (paragraph [0128]), as determined by the battery, prior to the end of life condition of the battery (40-60 percent of full charge, paragraph [0112]); and a communication link that transmits (arrow from 2320 to 2340 inside a PCB of the battery; PCB is shown as 152 in fig. 1A) data externally (paragraphs [0068][0070][242]; fig. 21) to monitor a battery health of the battery. Olsson teaches information such as current battery capacity and estimated remaining battery life can be obtained using parameters stored in memory 172 (paragraph [0110], fig. 1B, which shows the inside of battery, paragraph [0018]); and the processing element can provide indication of “charge or discharge state, battery cycling information, remaining battery life” (paragraph [0110]). Olsson does not teach RGB LEDs 420 are to configure to display a runtime indicator of an exact amount of time or an estimate of the exact amount of time the battery can be used to power the device before needing to be at least one of recharged or replaced prior to an end of life condition or the battery; in other words, Olsson does not teach whether RGB LEDs 420 display the battery life in exact time such as in minutes, or just displaying it in colored bars. In the same field of endeavor, Neumeyer teaches that consumers expect an accurate indication of battery life (paragraph [0003]) and to display remaining battery life (“visual representation”, paragraph [0028]). Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the battery to display a runtime indicator of an exact amount of time or an estimate of the exact amount of time the battery, prior to an end of life condition of the battery, can be used to power the device before needing to be at least one of recharged or replaced such as using battery-state-indicating LEDs 420 in Olsson, for the benefit of meeting consumers’ expectation of knowing battery life. Olsson teaches the battery further comprising a sensor for at least one of measuring or monitoring an environmental condition (temperature, paragraph [0110]) of the battery, and wherein the battery is configured to determine the runtime indicator(charge/discharge states, paragraph [0110]) and the end of life indicator (remaining battery life, paragraph [0110]) based on at least one of the environmental condition (temperature, paragraph [0110]) and (“one or more”, paragraph [0110]) usage (battery age and charge/discharge history, paragraph [0110]). Olsson does not teach to measure or monitor plural environmental conditions. In the same field of endeavor, Ludtke teaches including plural environmental conditions such as temperature and pressure can more accurately infer battery charge state (paragraph [0102]). Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include plural sensors for at least one of measuring or monitoring plural environmental conditions of the battery, and to configure the battery to determine the runtime indicator and the end of life indicator based on the environmental conditions for the benefit of more accurately infer battery charge state. Neumeyer teaches the exact amount of time and an end of life indication for the benefit of meeting consumers’ expectation (paragraph [0003]). Olsson does not teach the battery is for a medical device. Using the battery for a medical device is an intended use of the battery and does not carry patentable weight because whatever the battery is used to power does not impart structural features to the claimed battery. Regarding claim 2, Neumeyer teaches the exact amount of time is displayed in minutes (paragraph [0028]). Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the battery to display the runtime indicator in minutes for the benefit of meeting consumers’ expectation of knowing battery life. Regarding claim 3, Olsson in view of Neumeyer teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the end of life indicator includes a tricolored LED (RBG LEDs 420, fig. 4, paragraph [0128] of Olsson) configured to indicate the condition of the battery relative to the end of life condition of the battery (paragraphs [0011][0110] of Olsson). Regarding claim 7, Olsson teaches the battery of claim 1 wherein the communication link (arrow from 2320 to 2340 inside a PCB of the battery; PCB is shown as 152 in fig. 1A; fig. 21) for transmits data to at least one of a central location of the battery (data for battery age, for example, is transmitted from 2320 to 2340, fig. 23), a specified location of the battery, or a pre-selected location of the battery. Regarding claim 8, Olsson in view of Neumeyer teaches the data includes runtime indicator as determined by the battery, of the exact amount of time the battery can be used to power the medical device before needing to be at least one of recharged or replaced (See claim 1 above, and fig. 23 of Olsson: initial capacity 2330; charge history 2322; battery age 2328) prior to an end of life condition of the battery and the environmental condition of the battery (temperature, paragraphs [0110][0112]). Regarding claim 24, Olsson teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the communication link transmits (arrow from 2320 to 2340 inside a PCB of the battery; PCB is shown as 152 in fig. 1A; fig. 21) data (paragraphs [0068][0070][242]) for monitoring of the battery health of the battery. Olsson does not teach where/whom to send the data. Sending the data “to an owner/operator of the medical device and/or to a manufacturer/supplier of the battery” is an intended use of the battery. Because Olsson teaches the data to be sent, it does not carry patentable weight whether an owner/operator of the medical device and/or to a manufacturer/supplier of the battery or other receiver receives the data, because whoever is on the receiving end does not impart structural features to the claimed battery. Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson et al (PG Pub 2013/0164567 A1), Neumeyer (PG Pub 2012/0130660 A1), and Ludtke (PG Pub 2009/0033277 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gaines et al (PG Pub 2012/0182143 A1). Regarding claim 6, Olsson does not explicitly teach the battery to comprise a global positioning system transponder. Olsson teaches sharing between batteries information such as instrument location history (paragraph [0237] and Table I). Gaines teaches providing a global positioning system transponder for the benefit of determining a location of a device (39a, fig. 3, paragraph [0043]). Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a global positioning system transponder for the benefit of determining a location of a device. Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson et al (PG Pub 2013/0164567 A1), Neumeyer (PG Pub 2012/0130660 A1), and Ludtke (PG Pub 2009/0033277 A1) as applied to claims 3 and 9 above, and further in view of Recker et al (PG Pub 2010/0327766 A1). Regarding claim 4, Olsso remains as applied in claim 3 above. Olsso further teaches using color LEDs indicate battery status (paragraph [0071]). Olsso does not teach the tricolored LED includes at least one of: a green LED indicating the battery is in a good condition; a yellow LED indicating the battery is nearing the end of life condition of the battery; or a red LED indicating an immediate replacement of the battery. In the same field of endeavor, Recker teaches the battery of claim 3 wherein the tricolored LED includes at least one of: a green LED indicating the battery is in a good condition a yellow LED indicating the battery is nearing an end of life or a red LED indicating an immediate replacement of the battery (paragraph [0265]). Recker further teaches to use any color LEDs to indicate the status (paragraph [0265]). Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the tricolored LED to include at least one of: a green LED indicating the battery is in a good condition; a yellow LED indicating the battery is nearing the end of life the end of life condition of the battery; or a red LED indicating an immediate replacement of the battery, since it was known that any color LED might be used to indicate the battery status. Claims 9,10,13,15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson et al (PG Pub 2013/0164567 A1), Neumeyer (PG Pub 2012/0130660 A1), Ludtke (PG Pub 2009/0033277 A1), and Centen (PG Pub 2010/0022904 A1). Regarding claim 9, Olsson teaches a system comprising: a device (fig. 35); and a battery (fig. 37), coupled to the device and configured to power the device (paragraph [0057]), wherein the battery includes means (“electronic circuit”, paragraphs [0011][0073][0078]; 160 in paragraphs [0112]; process 2300 in paragraph [0192]; claim 33 of Olsson) for determining an end of life indicator of a condition of the battery relative to an end of life condition of the battery, wherein the battery further includes means (“electronic circuit”, paragraphs [0011][0073][0078]; 160 in paragraphs [0112]; process 2300 in paragraph [0192]; claim 33 of Olsson) for determining a runtime indicator of an exact amount of time or an estimate of the exact amount of time the battery can be used to power the device before needing to be at least one of recharged or replaced prior to the end of life condition of the battery; and a communication link that transmits (arrow from 2320 to 2340 inside a PCB of the battery; PCB is shown as 152 in fig. 1A) data externally (paragraphs [0068][0070][242]; fig. 21) to monitor a battery health of the battery. Fig. 37 does not teach that the battery further includes a display on the battery displaying an exact amount of time or an estimate of the exact amount of time the battery can be used to power the device before needing to be at least one of recharged or replaced. Embodiment shown in figs. 1-4 teaches a display (RGB LEDs 420, paragraph [0128]; visual indication by an LED, paragraph [0073]) on the battery (aligned with apertures 218 in fig. 2, paragraph [0128]; fig. 2 shows battery enclosure 100, paragraph [0114]) configured to display the end of life indicator, as determined by the battery, of the condition of the battery relative to the end of life condition of the battery (paragraph [0110], fig. 1B, which shows the inside of battery, paragraph [0018]; and the processing element can provide indication of “charge or discharge state, battery cycling information, remaining battery life” (paragraph [0110]), and wherein the display is further configured to display the runtime indicator, as determined by the battery, of state of charge of the battery (paragraph [0128]), for the known benefit of providing user indication of battery life. Olsson teaches information such as current battery capacity and estimated remaining battery life can be obtained using parameters stored in memory 172 (paragraph [0110], fig. 1B, which shows the inside of battery, paragraph [0018]); and the processing element can provide indication of “charge or discharge state, battery cycling information, remaining battery life” (paragraph [0110]). Olsson does not teach RGB LEDs 420 are to display an exact amount of time or an estimate of the exact amount of time the battery can be used before needing to be at least one of recharged or replaced; in other words, Olsson does not teach whether RGB LEDs 420 display the battery life in exact time such as in minutes, or just displaying it in colored bars. In the same field of endeavor, Neumeyer teaches that consumers expect an accurate indication of battery life (paragraph [0003]) and to display remaining battery life (“visual representation”, paragraph [0028]). Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a display on the battery configured to display a runtime indicator of state of charge of an exact amount of time or an estimate of the exact amount of time the battery can be used before needing to be at least one of recharged or replaced, prior to an end of life condition of the battery, such as using battery-state-indicating LEDs 420 in Olsson, for the benefit of meeting consumers’ expectation of knowing battery life. Olsson teaches the battery further comprising a sensor for at least one of measuring or monitoring an environmental condition (temperature, paragraph [0110]) of the battery, and wherein the battery is configured to determine the runtime indicator(charge/discharge states, paragraph [0110]) and the end of life indicator (remaining battery life, paragraph [0110]) based on at least one of the environmental condition (temperature, paragraph [0110]) and (“one or more”, paragraph [0110]) usage (battery age and charge/discharge history, paragraph [0110]). Olsson does not teach to measure or monitor plural environmental conditions. In the same field of endeavor, Ludtke teaches including plural environmental conditions such as temperature and pressure can more accurately infer battery charge state (paragraph [0102]). Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include plural sensors for at least one of measuring or monitoring plural environmental conditions of the battery, and to configure the battery to determine the runtime indicator and the end of life indicator based on the environmental conditions for the benefit of more accurately infer battery charge state. Olsson does not teach the device to be a medical device. In the same field of endeavor, Centen teaches the device to be a defibrillator (paragraph [0108]), for the known benefit of providing a device that can restore heartbeats. Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the device to be a medical device, for the known benefit of providing a device that can restore heartbeats. Regarding claim 10, Neumeyer teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the display is configured to display the exact amount of time in minutes (paragraph [0028]). Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the battery to display the runtime indicator in minutes for the benefit of meeting consumers’ expectation of knowing battery life. Regarding claim 13, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art in view of Olsson to configure the display to display the end of life indicator of the battery as an indication that the battery should be replaced, for the known benefit of alerting the user when it’s time to replace an old battery by displaying the information that is already available in the battery: Olsson teaches to calculate “remaining battery life” (paragraph [0110]), which indicates the battery’s end of life condition. Regarding claim 15, Olsson teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the battery is structured and configured to at least one of measure or monitor the usage of the battery (“to measure, monitor, control, and/or store battery operational information and/or coupled device operational information” paragraph [0009]). Regarding claim 16, Olsson teaches the system of claim 9 further comprising: wherein the communication link (3791, fig 37, paragraph [0255]) for transmits data to at least one of a central location of the battery, a specified location of the battery or a pre-selected location. Regarding claim 17, Olsson teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the communication link (3790, fig 37) is coupled directly to the battery. Regarding claim 18, Olsson teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the communication link is structured and configured to communicate at least one of wirelessly (3790, fig 37, paragraph [0255]) or via the cloud. Regarding claim 19, Olsson does not teach the device to be a defibrillator. Centen teaches the device to be a defibrillator (paragraph [0108]), for the known benefit of providing a device that can restore heartbeats. Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the device to be a defibrillator, for the known benefit of providing a device that can restore heartbeats. Regarding claim 20, Olsson teaches a method, comprising: determining, via a battery, an end of life indicator of a condition of the battery relative to an end of life condition of the battery (“electronic circuit”, paragraphs [0011][0073][0078]; 160 in paragraphs [0112]; process 2300 in paragraph [0192]; claim 33 of Olsson); displaying (RGB LEDs 420, paragraph [0128]; visual indication by an LED, paragraph [0073]), via the battery, the end of life indicator, as determined by the battery, of the condition of the battery relative to the end of life condition of the battery; determining, via the battery, a runtime indicator of an exact amount of time or an estimate of the exact amount of time remaining before the battery should be recharged or replaced prior to power a device prior to the end of life condition of the battery (“current battery capacity”, “remaining battery life”, paragraph [0110]; using the processing element, paragraph [0110], included in the PCB, paragraph [0068], i.e. PCB 152 in figs. 1-4; charge/discharge history, battery age, paragraph [0110]; battery age, fig. 23); and displaying, via the battery, the runtime indicator of the state of charge of the battery prior to an end of life condition of the battery (paragraph [0128]; visual indication by an LED, paragraph [0073]); and communicating (arrow from 2320 to 2340 inside a PCB of the battery; PCB is shown as 152 in fig. 1A) externally (paragraphs [0068][0070][242]; fig. 21), via a communication link, data to monitor a battery health of the battery. Olsson teaches information such as current battery capacity and estimated remaining battery life can be obtained using parameters stored in memory 172 (paragraph [0110], fig. 1B, which shows the inside of battery, paragraph [0018]); and the processing element can provide indication of “charge or discharge state, battery cycling information, remaining battery life” (paragraph [0110]). Olsson does not teach RGB LEDs 420 are to display an exact amount of time or an estimate of the exact amount of time the battery can be used before needing to be at least one of recharged or replaced; in other words, Olsson does not teach whether RGB LEDs 420 display the battery life in exact time such as in minutes, or just displaying it in colored bars. In the same field of endeavor, Neumeyer teaches that consumers expect an accurate indication of battery life (paragraph [0003]) and to display remaining battery life (“visual representation”, paragraph [0028]). Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine/display, via the battery, the runtime indicator of the exact amount of time or the estimate of the exact amount of time remaining before the battery, prior to an end of life condition of the battery, should be recharged or replaced to power the device, such as using battery-state-indicating LEDs 420 in Olsson, for the benefit of meeting consumers’ expectation of knowing battery life. Olsson does not teach the device to be a medical device. In the same field of endeavor, Centen teaches the device to be a defibrillator (paragraph [0108]), for the known benefit of providing a device that can restore heartbeats. Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the device to be a medical device, for the known benefit of providing a device that can restore heartbeats. Regarding claim 21, Olsson in view of Neumeyer and Centen teaches (see claims 1, 9, and 20) the method of claim 20, further comprising: monitoring at least one of an environmental condition of the battery and a usage of battery; and wherein the determining, via the battery, the runtime indicator of the exact amount of time or the estimate of the exact amount of time remaining before the battery should be recharged or replaced to power the medical device prior to the end of life condition of the battery is based on the monitoring of the at least one of the environmental condition of the battery and the usage of battery. Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson et al (PG Pub 2013/0164567 A1), Neumeyer (PG Pub 2012/0130660 A1), Ludtke (PG Pub 2009/0033277 A1), and Centen (PG Pub 2010/0022904 A1) as applied to claims 3 and 9 above, and further in view of Recker et al (PG Pub 2010/0327766 A1). Regarding claim 11, Olsso remains as applied in claim 9 above. Olsso further teaches using color LEDs indicate battery status (paragraph [0071]). Olsso does not teach an end of life indicator including the tricolored LED, wherein the tricolored LED includes at least one of: a green LED indicating the battery is in a good condition; a yellow LED indicating the battery is nearing an end of life; or a red LED indicating an immediate replacement of the battery. In the same field of endeavor, Recker teaches an end of life indicator including the tricolored LED, wherein the tricolored LED includes at least one of: a green LED indicating the battery is in a good condition a yellow LED indicating the battery is nearing an end of life or a red LED indicating an immediate replacement of the battery (paragraph [0265]). Recker further teaches to use any color LEDs to indicate the status (paragraph [0265]). Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make an end of life indicator including the tricolored LED configured to indicate a condition of the battery relative to the end of life condition of the battery, and wherein the tricolored LED included at least one of: a green LED indicating the battery was in a good condition; a yellow LED indicating the battery was nearing the end of life of the battery; or a red LED indicating an immediate replacement of the battery, since it was known that any color LED might be used to indicate the battery status. Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson et al (PG Pub 2013/0164567 A1), Neumeyer (PG Pub 2012/0130660 A1), Ludtke (PG Pub 2009/0033277 A1), and Centen (PG Pub 2010/0022904 A1) as applied to claims 9 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al (PG Pub 2007/0164707 A1). Regarding claim 12, Olsson does not teach the display is configured to display the end of life indicator as a number of recharge cycles remaining before the battery should be replaced. In the same field of endeavor, Suzuki teaches the display is configured to display the end of life indicator as a number of recharge cycles (L=L0-N, paragraphs [0062])0081]) remaining before the battery should be replaced, for the benefit of allowing the user to know in advance when the battery needs replacement. Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the display to display the end of life indicator of the battery as a number of recharge cycles remaining before the battery should be replaced, for the benefit of allowing the user to know in advance when the battery needs replacement. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed January 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant stated that (page 8, third paragraph, and page 9, remarks) that the device Olsson’s battery powers is not a medical device or defibrillator. In response, Applicant’s invention is a battery, not a medical device. Applicant teaches to use the battery to power the medical device (claim 1, for example). Thus, powering a medical device, or a defibrillator, is an intended use of the battery and does not carry patentable weight because it does not impart structural features into the battery. Applicant stated that (page 8, fourth and fifth paragraphs, remarks) that Olsson does not teach sending the data to an owner/operator of the medical device and/or to a manufacturer/supplier of the battery. Sending the data “to an owner/operator of the medical device and/or to a manufacturer/supplier of the battery” is an intended use of the battery. Because Olsson teaches the data to be sent, it does not carry patentable weight whether an owner/operator of the medical device and/or to a manufacturer/supplier of the battery or other receiver receives the data, because whoever is on the receiving end does not impart structural features to the claimed battery. 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 FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am to 4pm EST. 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, Dale Page can be reached at 571 270 7877. 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. /FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 12, 2016
Application Filed
Feb 12, 2016
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 10, 2018
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 18, 2018
Response Filed
Jul 10, 2018
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 19, 2018
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 01, 2018
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 01, 2018
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 19, 2018
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 26, 2018
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 05, 2018
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 08, 2019
Response Filed
Apr 17, 2019
Final Rejection — §103
Jun 25, 2019
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 23, 2019
Notice of Allowance
Sep 25, 2019
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 03, 2019
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 07, 2019
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 11, 2020
Response Filed
May 13, 2020
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 20, 2020
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 18, 2020
Notice of Allowance
Nov 18, 2020
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 09, 2020
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 11, 2020
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 11, 2020
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 01, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 05, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 05, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 06, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 06, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 11, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 14, 2022
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 16, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 31, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 27, 2022
Response Filed
Aug 19, 2022
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 25, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 22, 2022
Notice of Allowance
Jan 23, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 12, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 27, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 07, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 09, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 12, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 12, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 15, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 17, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 21, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 20, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 30, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 30, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 07, 2025
Response Filed
May 28, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 30, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 29, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 14, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 13, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 13, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 23, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 20, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604577
MICRO-LED ENCAPSULATED STRUCTURE INCLUDING TWO POLYMERIC LAYERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598839
LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE FOR DISPLAY AND DISPLAY APPARATUS HAVING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598950
ELECTROSTATIC CHUCK HEATER AND FILM DEPOSITION APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589462
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593727
DISPLAY DEVICE USING SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT-EMITTING DIODES, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

13-14
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (-3.0%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1060 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month