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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/31/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims.
However, the examiner will respond to the applicant’s arguments, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
The applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
584
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
684
827
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive because the claims, as a whole, are directed to calculating an aging degree of a battery, but the structure of the battery is not highlighted as an integral part of the “solution.” The claims, as a whole, are directed to collecting data about a battery and then processing that data. However, the calculated data then appears to stay on the computer, rather than coming off the computer and effecting a transformation or reduction of the battery to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)).
Independent claims 1 and 13 have a final limitation directed to calculating the aging degree of the battery, but the claims do not positively recite what is done to the battery, as a result of that calculation. Is the battery replaced? Is it placed in a different operating mode? The examiner suggests positively reciting any transformation or reduction of the battery to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)).
The limitations that were added to the claims about the battery’s idle and active states were not considered to be indicative of integration into a practical application because they were generally cited and considered to merely serve to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The fact that the battery transitions between an active and idle state merely gives context to the type of data that is received and processed by the computer. The invention, as a whole, is still directed to gathering data through sensors and then processing that data using a computer, with the data staying on the computer, rather than being used to structurally transform the battery.
With respect to the applicant’s argument that, “amended claim 1 does not recite merely the placement of temperature sensors in different locations of a battery, but rather covers a practical implementation of collection and processing the data from those batteries that is distinctly tied to the heat generating and heat dissipating activities of the battery in a not well-understood or conventional fashion,” the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim merely includes a single line about “a first temperature sensor mounted on the battery and a second temperature sensor mounted on a cooling means of the battery.” However, the claims do not detail any specific nexus between the placement of the sensors and how their particular location connects to the rest of the data processing performed by the rest of the claims. Also, as seen in the below art, placing temperature sensors at different locations on a battery/cooling means is well-known and well-understood.
The 101 rejection is maintained for the above reasons and for the reasons discussed in the modified 101 rejection below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS of 07/16/25 has been considered.
Drawings
As stated in a previous action, the drawings of 09/06/22 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
With respect to step 1 of the patent subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Independent claim 1 is directed to a method of calculating an aging degree of a battery, which is a process. Independent claim 13 is directed to an apparatus for calculating an aging degree of a battery, which is a machine. All other claims depend on independent claims 1 and 13. As such, claims 1-15 are directed to a statutory category.
With respect to step 2A, prong one, the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Specifically, the following limitations recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
Claim 1
A method of calculating an aging degree of a battery (This limitation recites an abstract idea because it specifically recites a mathematical calculation.)
wherein the duration of time that the battery spent in the idle state corresponds to an amount of time that the battery is not in the active state (This limitation appears to establish a mathematical relationship between the amount of time spent in idle state (variable 1) and the amount of time not spent in idle state (variable 2).)
determining whether the obtained duration of time is longer than or equal to a first reference duration (A determination of whether one value is greater than (i.e. longer than) or equal to another value is a simple abstract mental process that can be performed in the human mind. It is also an abstract mathematical relationship.)
determining which of a first algorithm or a second algorithm to use to calculate an average temperature of the battery based on whether the obtained duration of time is less than the first reference time or is greater than or equal to the first reference time, respectively, wherein the first algorithm is used when the duration of time is shorter than the first reference duration and excludes temperature measurements of the second temperature sensor from the average temperature calculation, and wherein the second algorithm is used when the duration of time is longer than or equal to the first reference duration and includes temperature measurements of the second temperature sensor in the average temperature calculation (This limitation recites an abstract idea because it specifically recites a mathematical calculation. It also explicitly recites specific algorithms.)
calculating the average temperature of the battery using the selected one of the first algorithm or the second algorithm (This limitation recites an abstract idea because it specifically recites a mathematical calculation.)
calculating the aging degree of the battery based on the calculated average temperature (This limitation recites an abstract idea because it specifically recites a mathematical calculation.)
Independent claim 13 recites similar abstract ideas as claim 1.
Claim 13 has been amended to state, “whether a duration of time that the battery spent in the idle state is longer than or equal to a first reference amount of time.” A determination of whether one value is greater than (i.e. longer than) or equal to another value is a simple abstract mental process that can be performed in the human mind. It is also an abstract mathematical relationship.
Claim 13 has also been amended to state, “when the duration of time that the battery spent in the idle state is shorter than the first reference amount of time, calculate …” This limitation recites mathematical relationships and calculations.
Claim 13 has also been amended to state, “when the duration of time that the battery spent in the idle state is longer than or equal to the first reference amount of time, calculate …” This limitation recites mathematical relationships and calculations.
Claim 13 has also been amended to state, “algorithm that excludes …” and “algorithm that includes …” These limitations recite mathematical relationships and calculations.
All dependent claims depend on independent claims 1 and 13 and also recite their abstract limitations by virtue of their dependence. In addition, some of the dependent claims also recite their own abstract mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
For example, dependent claims 2-4, 8, 10, and 14-15 are further directed to abstract mathematical calculations. Dependent claims 2 and 14 are further directed to reciting specific algorithms. Dependent claim 7 discloses performing initial value setting, which is a mathematical operation. Dependent claim 9 recites abstract mathematical models. Dependent claim 12 recites simple mathematical relationships, where one value is greater, less than, or equal to another value.
With respect to step 2A, prong two, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following limitations are considered “additional elements” and explanation will be given as to why these “additional elements” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1
wherein the battery is operable in each of an idle state and an active state, wherein the battery generates heat while in the active state, and wherein the heat is dissipated while the battery is in the idle state (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Batteries having an idle state and an active state, where heat is generated and dissipated, appears to simply be a statement of how batteries work when in use and not in use. Such a general statement is also considered to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).)
receiving temperature measurement values from a plurality of temperature sensors including a first temperature sensor mounted on the battery and a second temperature sensor mounted on a cooling means of the battery (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because receiving data for the purposes of mathematical data processing merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The ”solution” is in the data processing, not in the data reception. The examiner considered whether the disclosure of the first temperature sensor mounted on the battery and a second temperature sensor mounted on a cooling means of the battery was merely a general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or rather a more specific linking that applied or used the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). In making this determination, the examiner considered whether the placement of the sensors was in some way “unique,” in the sense of not being “generic” or “well-understood, routine, and/or conventional.” Upon performing an update search, the examiner found that the principle of placing multiple temperature sensors at different locations, including at a cooling means of the battery, was well-understood, routine, and/or conventional (as demonstrated by the art cited below). As such, the amended limitations more closely resembled generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.)
in response to the battery transitioning from the idle state to the active state (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Batteries transitioning between states is well-understood, routine, and conventional. The “solution” of the claimed invention is in the mathematical data processing of data that reflects the transitioning from an idle state to an active state, rather than the positive recitation of effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)) via the battery transitioning from an idle state to an active state. This is reflected by the fact that at the end of independent claims 1 and 13, the processed data stays on the computer, rather than being used to positively change the state of the battery.)
obtaining a duration of time that the battery spent in the idle state before transitioning to the active state (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because merely obtaining data serves as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “solution” is in the processing of the data, not in the obtaining of it.)
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites similar limitations, as in claim 1, that are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Some slight differences between claim 13 and claim 1 are also not indicative of integration into a practical application. For example:
a timer (Although a timer may be a structural element, its inclusion here merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Also, the timer here appears to be integrated as part of an overall computer system (as part of BMS 20) and merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).)
Although dependent claims 5-6 disclose arrangement around a specific region of the battery or cooling means, this disclosure is part of the overall data processing and does not affirmatively recite the structural elements in claim 3 (which claims 5-6 depend on). In that light, the limitations are akin to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Dependent claim 11 has been amended to state, “wherein the battery is included in an electric vehicle, wherein the idle state is a parking state of the electric vehicle and the active state is a driving state of the electric vehicle. This merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.)
With respect to step 2B, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claimed invention does not add significantly more because, as discussed above in step 2A, prong two, the claims do nothing more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims are directed to receiving and processing data. This is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, and specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo).
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goff et al (US PgPub 20130033102) in view of Uchida et al (US PgPub 20160377686) and Miyuki et al (WO2018079164A1) (see machine translation).
With respect to claim 1, Goff et al discloses:
A method of calculating an aging degree of a battery (paragraph 0023 states, “According to yet another embodiment of the invention, the remaining life of a battery can be determined, and a warning can be generated when the battery is nearing the end of its life.”)
in response to the battery being changed from a first state to a second state, obtaining a duration of time that the battery spent in the first state before transitioning to the second state (figure 5, reference 502 discloses “Elapsed time”; paragraph 0017 states, “The computer system is capable of, among other things, measuring operating parameters of the battery …”; paragraph 0023 states, “a computer system embedded inside the battery includes facilities for measuring time and temperature, includes storage facilities for retaining a history of these measurements, knowledge of the age of the battery, and optionally, empirical data about the effect of temperature on battery lifespan.”; paragraph 0012 states, “Automobile manufactures typically provide only the real-time state of the car’s charging system (alternator) when the engine is running …” However, Goff et al also discloses historical and empirical data of other operating parameters and states, such as when the engine is started. For example, paragraph 0068 states, “In the case of an engine starter battery, the computer system 800 can determine if the state of charge of the battery is low, if the battery 802 is producing erratic engine start times as compared to a temperature-indexed start time history, and/or if the battery 802 has an erratic initial start voltage …” See also claim 11, which states, “receiving new voltage data indicative of the output voltage … during a time period from when a starter motor of a vehicle is energized by said battery and an engine of said vehicle starts …”)
determining whether the obtained duration of time is longer than or equal to a first reference duration (figure 5; paragraph 0057 states, “In step 502, the elapsed time is read from timer 414. In step 504, if the elapsed time is one minute or more, program control proceeds to step 506.” Here, the one minute standard serves as the first reference time.)
calculating the average temperature of the battery (figure 5, references 510 and 516 calculate average temperatures. The algorithms are inherent to the calculations of references 510 and 516. Note also abstract, which states, “The embedded battery management system includes non-volatile memory that stores algorithms for implementing different functions of the battery management system.”)
calculating the aging degree of the battery based on the calculated average temperature (figure 5, reference 518 discloses, “Calculate Battery Life Expectancy”)
With respect to claim 1, Goff et al differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the battery is operable in each of an idle state and an active state, wherein the battery generates heat while in the active state, and wherein the heat is dissipated while the battery is in the idle state
receiving temperature measurement values from a plurality of temperature sensors including a first temperature sensor mounted on the battery and from a second temperature sensor mounted on a cooling means of the battery
the battery transitioning from the idle state to the active state, obtaining a duration of time that the battery spent in the idle state before transitioning to the active state, wherein the duration of time that the battery spent in the idle state corresponds to an amount of time that the battery is not in the active state
determining which of a first algorithm or a second algorithm to use to calculate an average temperature of the battery based on whether the obtained duration of time is less than the first reference time or is greater than or equal to the first reference time, respectively, wherein the first algorithm is used when the duration of time is shorter than the first reference duration and excludes temperature measurements of the second temperature sensor from the average temperature calculation, and wherein the second algorithm is used when the duration of time is longer than or equal to the first reference duration and includes temperature measurements of the second temperature sensor in the average temperature calculation
using the selected one of the first algorithm or the second algorithm
With respect to claim 1, Uchida et al discloses:
wherein the battery is operable in each of an idle state and an active state, wherein the battery generates heat while in the active state, and wherein the heat is dissipated while the battery is in the idle state (paragraph 0052 states, “Thus, the battery control apparatus 310 has a timer 340 capable of measuring the time. If the timer 340 is also stopped while the battery control apparatus 310 is stopped, the time while stopped cannot be measured and thus, the timer 340 is not stopped. The timer can also operate while the battery control apparatus 310 is stopped. That is, the battery control apparatus 310 is being stopped means being in an operation in low-power mode (sleep mode) … devices of high power consumption … are stopped …” Generating heat and dissipating heat are obvious in view of the disclosure of stopping power consumption. One of ordinary skill in the art recognizes the link between power and heat generation in a battery that has active and sleep/low power/idle modes.)
the battery transitioning from the idle state to the active state, obtaining a duration of time that the battery spent in the idle state before transitioning to the active state, wherein the duration of time that the battery spent in the idle state corresponds to an amount of time that the battery is not in the active state (paragraph 0052 states, “In response to the return to the normal mode from the low-power mode, the time calculation unit 341 acquires the return time from the timer 340 and calculates a stop interval (execution time of the low-power mode) from a different between the start time recorded in the storage apparatus 328 and the return time. The temperature and SOC when returned from the low-power mode may be adopted as the temperature and SOC to calculate degradation or the temperature and SOC when transitioned to the low-power mode may be recorded in the storage apparatus 328 so that the average values … are adopted as the temperature and SOC to calculate degradation.”)
determining which of a first algorithm or a second algorithm to use to calculate an average temperature of the battery based on whether the obtained duration of time is less than the first reference time or is greater than or equal to the first reference time, respectively, wherein the first algorithm is used when the duration of time is shorter than the first reference duration and excludes temperature measurements of the second temperature sensor from the average temperature calculation, and wherein the second algorithm is used when the duration of time is longer than or equal to the first reference duration and includes temperature measurements of the second temperature sensor in the average temperature calculation (obvious in view of combination; Goff et al teaches using multiple algorithms to optimize battery management (paragraph 0017). It discloses calculating average temperature (paragraph 0056), state of charge (paragraph 0068), and battery condition based on temperature-indexed time history and the state of charge (paragraph 0068). Goff et al does not explicitly detail the situation of transitioning between idle state and active state, as well as accounting for the duration of time between the states as part of the state of charge/battery condition analysis. This is what Uchida teaches. It would be obvious to combine the idle/active state duration context teachings of Uchida et al to the multiple algorithms teachings of Goff et al to arrive at the claimed limitation.)
using the selected one of the first algorithm or the second algorithm (obvious in view of combination; As disclosed above, Goff teaches using multiple algorithms.)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Uchida et al into the invention of Goff et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of optimizing batteries, taking into account their active and idle states.
With respect to claim 1, Miyuki et al discloses:
receiving temperature measurement values from a plurality of temperature sensors including a first temperature sensor mounted on the battery and from a second temperature sensor mounted on a cooling means of the battery (figure 6, reference S4(T4))
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Miyuki et al into the invention of Goff et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of providing more data for more accurate temperature measurements.
Independent claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons as those given in independent claim 1. It is represents the apparatus claim variation of method claim 1. One slight difference is that it affirmatively claims a timer and a controller. Goff et al discloses both a timer (figure 4, reference 414) and a controller (figure 4, reference 410). Also, as discussed above, Uchida et al also discloses a timer for the active/idle states.
With respect to claims 2 and 14, Goff et al, as modified, discloses:
further comprising determining/determine a minimum temperature value of the battery before start of the idle state of the battery, wherein the first algorithm calculates the average temperature of the battery based on the determined minimum temperature value of the battery and a temperature measurement value of the first temperature sensor mounted on the battery (obvious in view of combination; In addition to its idle state teachings, paragraph 0050 of Uchida et al states, “the battery control apparatus 210 may include a maximum temperature calculation unit or a minimum temperature calculation unit.”)
With respect to claims 3 and 15, Goff et al, as modified, discloses:
further comprising calculating/calculate a minimum temperature value based on a first temperature measurement value of the first temperature sensor and a second temperature measurement value of the second temperature sensor, and wherein the second algorithm calculates the average temperature of the battery based on the temperature measurement value of the first temperature sensor and the calculated minimum temperature value (obvious in view of combination; As stated above, Uchida et al teaches idle states and calculating minimum temperature value. Both Goff et al and Uchida et al teach calculating average temperature. Goff et al teaches using multiple sensors and algorithms.)
With respect to claim 4, Goff et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein calculating the minimum temperature value is based on a value indicating a relationship between a maximum temperature value of the battery before start of the idle state of the battery and a minimum temperature value of the battery before start of the idle state of the battery (obvious in view of combination; As discussed above, Uchida et al discloses maximum and minimum temperature calculation, as well as idle/active state of the battery.)
With respect to claim 5, Goff et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the first temperature sensor is arranged in a maximum-temperature region of the battery (obvious in view of combination; Miyuki et al discloses placing temperature sensors at different locations. Uchida et al teaches minimum and maximum temperature.)
With respect to claim 6, Goff et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the minimum temperature value indicates a temperature of a region where the battery is adjacent to the cooling means (obvious in view of combination; Miyuki et al discloses placing temperature sensors at different locations. Uchida et al teaches minimum and maximum temperature.)
With respect to claim 7, Goff et al, as modified, discloses:
further comprising performing initial value setting when the battery transitions from the idle state to the active state based on the calculated average temperature (obvious in view of combination; see discussion of Uchida et al above)
With respect to claim 8, Goff et al, as modified, discloses:
further comprising, when the battery is in the active state, calculating the minimum temperature value based on a heat transfer model modelling transfer of heat between a first position of the first temperature sensor, a second position of the second temperature sensor, and a third position of the battery in which the battery is in contact with the cooling means (obvious in view of combination; As discussed above, paragraph 0050 of Uchida et al discloses maximum temperature calculation unit and minimum calculation unit. Miyuki et al discloses heat transfer member (paragraph 0032) and locating multiple sensors at different locations (figure 6).)
With respect to claim 9, Goff et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the heat transfer model models heat transfer in at least one of a first space between the first position and the third position or a second space between the third position and the second position based on a resistance-capacitance (RC) thermal model (obvious in view of calculations involving heat transfer member, as discussed in Miyuki et al)
With respect to claim 10, Goff et al, as modified, discloses:
further comprising, in response to the duration being longer than the first reference time by a predetermined threshold amount, determining the average temperature of the battery to equal the temperature measurement value of a first temperature sensor mounted on the battery (As discussed in claim 1 above, the duration, first reference time, predetermined threshold amount, and average temperature of the battery are taught in Goff figure 5, references 504, 510, and 516. Figure 5, reference 508 asks if 60 samples have been taken. However, there is no criticality established for the number 60. This appears to be a user design decision. If the number of samples was 1 instead of 60, then the output of references 504-510 would result in the claimed determination of the average temperature of the battery to equal the temperature measurement value of a first temperature sensor mounted on the battery. As such, the claimed limitation is considered to be obvious, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand trying different sample values based on use case. See also teachings of Uchida et al, as discussed above.)
With respect to claim 11, Goff et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the battery is included in an electric vehicle, wherein idle state is a parking state of the electric vehicle, and the active state is a driving state of the electric vehicle (as discussed with respect to Uchida et al above)
With respect to claim 12, Goff et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein an output of the battery in the idle state is less than a reference output, and the output of the battery in the active state is greater than or equal to the reference output (obvious in view of combination; See teachings of Uchida et al, as discussed above.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Colavincenzo et al (US PgPub 20180162376) discloses a front end motor-generator system and hybrid electric vehicle operating method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONARD S LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ can be reached on (571)272-2619. 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.
/LEONARD S LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 05/30/26
Prosecution Insights