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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/19/2026 in RCE has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 03/19/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-5, 7-8, & 10 remain pending. Claims 1-3, & 10 have been amended. Claims 6, & 9 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 5 line 16 to page 6 line 16, filed 03/19/2026, with respect to 35 USC § 112 rejections of claims 1-5, 7-8, & 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 112 rejections of claims 1-5, 7-8, & 10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 9 line 1 to page 6 line 28, filed 03/19/2026, with respect to 35 USC § 103 rejections of claims 1-5, 7-8, & 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC of claims 1-5, 7-8, & 10 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 6 line 17 to page 8 line 17, filed 03/19/2026, with respect to 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 1-5, 7-8, & 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 8 lines 7-9):
“Even if the claims recite an exception, this exception is integrated into a practical application because the claims include additional elements that are an improvement to technology.”
& (page 8 lines 13-17):
“This limitation is not open ended because it recites that the results of the claimed method are used to control and optimize the operation of the specific systems (battery energy storage systems) and specific devices within these systems (batteries) according to specific physical actions (charging and discharging of the batteries).”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g):
“Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process,”
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.”
See MPEP 2106.05(f): “When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following: (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.”
Analysis:
The amendments include:
1) “wherein the characteristics of calendar ageing wearing coefficient BWC1 and characteristics of cycle ageing wearing coefficient BWC2 of the battery are determined based on battery parameters declared by battery manufacturer”
This limitation is not significantly more than extra solution (pre-solution) of necessary data gathering for the judicial exception(s).
2)
“wherein the method is employed for estimating battery degradation of the battery energy storage system (BESS)”
This limitation is not significantly more than extra solution (post-solution) of necessary application of the judicial exception(s).
This limitation is also not significantly more than a field of use limitation corresponding to at least the field of CPC symbol G01R 31/392:". .Determining battery ageing or deterioration, e.g. state of health"
3)
“wherein the estimated battery degradation is used to optimize the operation of the BESS including setting charging/dis-charging C-rates and State of Charges for batteries of the BESS leading to slower wearing of the batteries.”
This limitation is not significantly more than extra solution (post-solution) of necessary application of the judicial exception(s).
This limitation is also not significantly more than a field of use limitation corresponding to at least the field of CPC symbol G01R 31/392:". .Determining battery ageing or deterioration, e.g. state of health"
Conclusion:
Therefore, the amended limitations do not integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application nor amount to more than applying the judicial exception(s) within the field of use. The result of revised step 2A Prong Two is ‘No’ and the result of Step 2B is ‘No’. Resulting in the conclusion “claim are not eligible subject matter under 35 UCC 101”.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 8 line 18 to page 8 line 26, filed 03/19/2026, with respect to 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 1-5, 7-8, & 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 8 lines 18-21):
“The claimed approach also provides meaningful technical advantages in the technical field of BESS energy management because the claimed approach is implemented in real time, is automated, accurate in its results, and allows for the optimized operation of a BESS (e.g., extending the operating life of batteries).”
& (page 8 lines 23-24):
“For all these reasons, these additional claim features integrate any exception into a practical application.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “When determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), examiners should consider whether the claim recites a mathematical concept or merely limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept. A claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept.”
See MPEP 2106.05(I): “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."
See MPEP 2106(I): “Because abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomenon "are the basic tools of scientific and technological work", the Supreme Court has expressed concern that monopolizing these tools by granting patent rights may impede innovation rather than promote it.”
Analysis:
The claimed approach is no more specific than is implied by the field of use corresponding to at least CPC symbol G01R 31/392:". .Determining battery ageing or deterioration, e.g. state of health" with the addition of judicial exception(s) and necessary extra solution activity. That one of a “mathematical relationship, mathematical formula or equation, and mathematical calculation” is useful does not remove that mathematical concept from the judicial exception abstract idea grouping of “mathematical concepts” (allowing that concept to be patented “may impede innovation rather than promote it”). Additionally no inventive concept is found which is not within the judicial exception abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the amended limitations do not integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application nor amount to more than applying the judicial exception(s) within the field of use. The result of revised step 2A Prong Two is ‘No’ and the result of Step 2B is ‘No’. Resulting in the conclusion “claim are not eligible subject matter under 35 UCC 101”.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams from MPEP 2106(III) and 2106.04(II)(A)
Claims 1-5, 7-8, & 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
“a) acquiring battery parameters of a battery, characteristics of calendar ageing wearing coefficient BWC1 and characteristics of cycle ageing wearing coefficient BWC2 wherein BWC1 is a function of State of Charge (SoC) and BWC2 is a function of charging/dis-charging rate (C-rate),”
“b) acquiring and/or calculating instantaneous values of SoC and C-rate of the battery in a defined period,”
“c) reading instantaneous values of calendar ageing wearing coefficient BWC1 and/or instantaneous values of cycle ageing wearing coefficient BWC2, corresponding to instantaneous values of SoC and C-rate of a battery acquired in step (b), using characteristics of ageing wearing coefficients acquired in (a) and”
“d) determining: a value of calendar ageing wearing index BWI1 by referring integrated instantaneous values of BWC1 determined in (c) to the integrated nominal values of BWC1 for a period of nominal operation time with maximum allowable value of the SoC, and/or values of cycle ageing wearing index BWI2 by referring integrated instantaneous values of BWC2 determined in (c) to the integrated nominal values of BWC2 for full battery charging (from SoCmin to SoCmax) or discharging (from SoCmax to SoCmin) with nominal C-rate, thereby indicating degree of battery degradation of the battery energy storage system (BESS).”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations amount to no more than mathematical processes which could be done by generic computing elements (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Note: In this context “characteristics” are functions as demonstrated by Fig. 3 and para 0039: “Fig. 3 shows example characteristic of the battery wear coefficient BWC1 in function of SoC values in accordance with the disclosure.”
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; the additional elements are:
“computer-“
“a battery energy storage system (BESS)”
“battery”
These limitations “amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” (see MPEP 2106.05(h): “As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.”)
Note: USPC 702/063 includes “This class provides for apparatus and corresponding methods wherein the data processing system or calculating computer” & “Subject matter wherein the measured electrical parameter is related to a condition or a state of charge (e.g., temperature, life-state, voltage, charging, or discharging current) of a battery or a series of batteries.”
Regarding the amended limitations (filed 03/19/2026) :
“wherein the characteristics of calendar ageing wearing coefficient BWC1 and characteristics of cycle ageing wearing coefficient BWC2 of the battery are determined based on battery parameters declared by battery manufacturer.”
“wherein the method is employed for estimating battery degradation of the battery energy storage system (BESS);”
“wherein the estimated battery degradation is used to optimize the operation of the BESS including setting charging/dis-charging C-rates and State of Charges for batteries of the BESS leading to slower wearing of the batteries.”
Explanation:
The parts of these limitations which could be considered to be more than the judicial exception are not significantly more than extra solution activity or technological environment or field of use limitations or effectively stating ‘apply it’ with regard to the judicial exception(s), as explained below.
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g):
“Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process,”
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.”
See MPEP 2106.05(f): “When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following: (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “When determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), examiners should consider whether the claim recites a mathematical concept or merely limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept. A claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept.”
Analysis:
The amended limitations are directed towards use of a judicial exception(s) in the field of at least CPC symbol G01R31/392: “Determining battery ageing or deterioration, e.g. state of health” using necessary extra solution activity which is not significantly more than that which is implied by the judicial exception.
Therefore, the amended limitations do not integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application nor amount to more than applying the judicial exception(s) within the field of use. The result of revised step 2A Prong Two is ‘No’.
Conclusion:
The additional elements and limitations do not integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; the additional elements as listed in Revised Step 2A Prong 2 are generic elements.
These elements are no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity recited at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(d))
Evidentiary Requirements (see MPEP 2106.07(a)(III): “(C) A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)”):
US 20170115358 A1 (Kani, as cited in the Applicant’s specification para 0016) “Innovative Framework Combining Cycling and Calendar Aging Models” see Fig. 1 & 2
US 11239505 B2 (Seo) “Apparatus And Method For Estimating Capacity Retention Ratio Of Secondary Battery” see Fig. 2 & 3
Regarding the amended limitations (filed 03/19/2026)
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(I): “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."
Analysis:
That one of a “mathematical relationship, mathematical formula or equation, and mathematical calculation” is useful does not remove that mathematical concept from the judicial exception abstract idea grouping of “mathematical concepts”. Additionally no inventive concept is found which is not within the judicial exception abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
Conclusion:
The additional elements and limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 2:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 2 additionally recites:
further comprising determining a total current value of battery wearing index BWI according to the following equation: BWI=[k∙BWI1]+[(1-k) ·BWI2] wherein: k is a weight of calendar ageing wearing index BWI1 (for 0 < k < 1 ); and (1-k) is a weight of calendar ageing wearing index BWI2.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations amount to no more than mathematical processes which could be done by generic computing elements (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; there are no additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; there are no additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 3:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 3 additionally recites:
“wherein instantaneous values of SoC and C-rate of a battery are acquired from predicted SoC and C-rate profiles based on the historical data.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations amount to no more than mathematical processes which could be done by generic computing elements (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; there are no additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; there are no additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 4:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 4 additionally recites:
“wherein characteristics of calendar ageing wearing coefficient BWC1 and/or characteristics of cycle ageing wearing coefficient BWC2 are frequently updated.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations amount to no more than mathematical processes which could be done by generic computing elements (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; there are no additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; there are no additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 5:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 5 additionally recites:
“wherein characteristics of calendar ageing wearing coefficient BWC1 and/or characteristics of cycle ageing wearing coefficient BWC2 are tuned using ML algorithms, wherein historical data of the battery operation is used as input data for ML algorithms.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations amount to no more than mathematical processes which could be done by generic computing elements (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; there are no additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; there are no additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 7:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 7 additionally recites:
“wherein the steps of the method are performed by a processing employing artificial intelligence and/or machine learning techniques and/or at least one trained algorithm.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations amount to no more than mathematical processes which could be done by generic computing elements (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; there are no additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; there are no additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 8:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 8 additionally recites:
“wherein the method is employed for estimating battery degradation of a Li-Ion battery.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations amount to no more than mathematical processes which could be done by generic computing elements (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; there are no additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; there are no additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 10:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes; the claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 10 additionally recites:
“wherein acquiring battery parameters also includes acquiring operating parameters of the battery energy storage system (BESS).”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims these limitations amount to no more than mathematical processes which could be done by generic computing elements (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No; there are no additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No; there are no additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9217779 B2 "Method And System For Obtaining Degradation Of Battery Using Degradation Model And Parameters Related To The Degradation" (Xu) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 5.
US 10001528 B1 "Battery Deterioration Degree Estimating Apparatus And Estimating Method" (Matsuyama) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 2.
US 10527678 B2 "Apparatus And Method For Estimating State Of Battery Using Battery Degradation Models" (Lee) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 9.
.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858