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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it recites “the battery characteristic being estimated on the basis of the battery characteristic and the operation condition acquired by the acquisition unit, the battery characteristic being estimated by using a digital model” in lines 11-14. The limitation “the battery characteristic” has two antecedent bases (lines 4 and 10). It is unclear which is referred to.
For examination purpose, “acquire a battery characteristic” in line 4 is assumed to be --acquire [[a]] an initial battery characteristic-- to distinguish the two antecedent bases. As a result, each “the battery characteristic and the operation condition acquired” in lines 7-8 and 12-13 is assumed to be --the initial battery characteristic and the operation condition acquired--.
Regarding claim 7, it recites “wherein the battery characteristic” in line 2. It is unclear which antecedent basis the battery characteristic is referring to (see discussion of claim 1 above). For examination purpose, “wherein the battery characteristic” is assumed to be --wherein each of the initial battery characteristic and the estimated battery characteristic--.
Regarding claim 11, the claim inherits the issue from claim 1 above. For examination purpose, “the battery characteristic or the operation condition to be input” in lines 3-4 is assumed to be --the initial battery characteristic or the operation condition to be input--.
Regarding claim 12, the claim inherits the issue from claim 1 above. For examination purpose, “the battery characteristic or the operation condition input” in lines 6-7 is assumed to be --the initial battery characteristic or the operation condition input--. Also, the claim recites “a difference between the battery state and the predetermined target value” in lines 7-8. It appears that the same “predetermined target value” is used for comparing to “the battery characteristic” (claim 11) and “the battery state” (claim 12). This raises an issue whether the battery characteristic and the battery state are the same attribute (e.g., both are SOH?). For examination purpose, “a difference between the battery state and the predetermined target value” in lines 7-8 is assumed to be --a difference between the battery state and [[the]]a predetermined target value--.
Regarding claim 14, it recites “the battery characteristic being estimated on the basis of the battery characteristic and the operation condition acquired by the acquiring, the battery characteristic being estimated by using a digital model” in lines 10-13. The limitation “the battery characteristic” has two antecedent bases (lines 2 and 9). It is unclear which is referred to.
For examination purpose, “acquiring a battery characteristic” in line 2 is assumed to be --acquiring [[a]] an initial battery characteristic-- to distinguish the two antecedent bases. As a result, each “the battery characteristic and the operation condition acquired” in lines 5-6 and 11-12 is assumed to be --the initial battery characteristic and the operation condition acquired--.
The other claim(s) not discussed above are rejected for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
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.
MPEP 2106 outlines a two-part analysis for Subject Matter Eligibility as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
Step 2, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), then the claim cannot be directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), and thus the claim is eligible at Pathway B without further analysis. Abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Claims 1-17 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.
Regarding claim 1, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions)? Yes (see analysis below).
Prong one: Whether the claim recites a judicial exception? (Yes). The claim recites:
1. A storage battery management device comprising a hardware processor connected to a memory, the hardware processor being configured to function as:
an acquisition unit to acquire a battery characteristic and an operation condition of a storage battery device including a plurality of storage batteries;
a selection unit to select data values from a data value group of a data item in which variation in data value is caused out of data items included in the battery characteristic and the operation condition acquired by the acquisition unit; and
an estimation unit to estimate, for each of the data values selected by the selection unit, a battery characteristic after operation corresponding to a case where the storage battery device is operated under the operation condition, the battery characteristic being estimated on the basis of the battery characteristic and the operation condition acquired by the acquisition unit, the battery characteristic being estimated by using a digital model capable of reproducing operations and deterioration characteristics of the storage batteries in a simulative manner.
The above bold-faced limitations are directed to mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper). Note that the selection can be a mental process or a mathematical selection. The estimation is processing data based on certain mathematical model or algorithms.
Prong two: Whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception? (No). The claim recites additional elements as underlined above. The processor and memory are to invoke a generic computer to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The acquisition of data is recited at a high level of generality that it is an insignificant extra-solution activity to collect the data necessarily for the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements (other than the judicial exception) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No (see analysis below).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, the additional element(s) in the claim are an insignificant extra-solution activity, and to invoke a generic computer for its computing power to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. Also, it is routine and conventional to invoke a computer for data processing. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Considered as a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 14 is similarly rejected by analogy to claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 15-17 when analyzed as a whole respectively are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they either extend (or add more details to) the abstract idea or the additional recited limitation(s) (if any) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as discussed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that sufficiently integrates the abstract idea into a practical application of, or makes the claims significantly more than, the judicial exception (abstract idea). The additional element(s) (if any) are mere instructions to apply an except, field of use, and/or insignificant extra-solution activities (applied to Step 2A_Prong Two and Step 2B; see MPEP 2016.05(f)-(h)) and/or well-understood, routine, or conventional (applied to Step 2B; see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. Note that claims 2, 9, 10, and 15-17 recite a display device to display the estimated battery characteristics. However, they are recited to show the results of the abstract idea in some general or conventional manners. They are considered as extra-solution activities, not sufficient to make the claim eligible. Claim 11 recites “to change the battery characteristic or the operation condition to be input to the estimation unit.” However, this is to change the data to be input, which is part of the abstract idea. This is different from changing the physical operation or condition of the battery in real world.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by UKUMORI (US 20210033680 A1).
Regarding claim 1, UKUMORI teaches a storage battery management device comprising a hardware processor connected to a memory, the hardware processor being configured to function (i.e., “the control unit 20 and the processing unit 23 can be achieved on a computer by loading a computer program that determines the procedure of each processing, as shown in FIGS. 19, 20, 30, and 31, into the RAM (memory) provided in the computer and by executing the computer program with the CPU (processor)”; see [0223]) as:
an acquisition unit to acquire a battery characteristic (i.e., SOHte1) and an operation condition (i.e., “the input data for life estimation may be ninety SOC values from time te1 (e.g., at present) to time te90, ninety temperature values from time te1 to time te90, and SOHte1 at time te1”; see [0165] and FIG. 16) of a storage battery device including a plurality of storage batteries (i.e., “The energy storage module group L has a hierarchical structure of, for example, an energy storage module (also called a module) in which a plurality of energy storage cells (also called a cell) are connected in series, a bank in which a plurality of energy storage modules are connected in series, and a domain in which a plurality of banks are connected in parallel”; see [0107]);
a selection unit to select data values from a data value group of a data item (i.e., SOC or temperature) in which variation in data value is caused out of data items included in the battery characteristic and the operation condition acquired by the acquisition unit (i.e., ., “the input data for life estimation may be ninety SOC values from time te1 (e.g., at present) to time te90, ninety temperature values from time te1 to time te90, and SOHte1 at time te1”; see [0165] and FIG. 16; note that SOC and/or temperature at time te2 are specified, and thus selected); and
an estimation unit to estimate, for each of the data values selected by the selection unit, a battery characteristic after operation corresponding to a case where the storage battery device is operated under the operation condition, the battery characteristic being estimated on the basis of the battery characteristic and the operation condition acquired by the acquisition unit (i.e., “ a value estimated by the learning-completed learning model 26 based on the SOH at a time point before the first time point can also be used. Thus, the SOH can be continuously estimated in any period. The second time point is a prediction target point at which the SOH is estimated… The learning-completed learning model 26 estimates the SOH at the second time point with the SOH at the first time point and the time-series data as input data”; see [0166]-[0167]), the battery characteristic being estimated by using a digital model capable of reproducing operations and deterioration characteristics of the storage batteries in a simulative manner (i.e., “The processing unit 23 operates in a learning mode for causing the learning model 26 to learn and an estimation mode for estimating a state of health (SOH) (estimating degradation) of the energy storage device by using the learning-completed learning model 26”; see [0129]; “the degradation simulator 50 can estimate a decrease (degradation value) of the SOH from time point t1 to time point tn based on variation in the SOC and the temperature from time point t1 to time point tn”; see [0181]).
Regarding claim 3, UKUMORI further teaches:
wherein
the acquisition unit acquires the battery characteristic estimated by the estimation unit as a new battery characteristic and acquires a new operation condition (i.e., “as SOHte1 at the first time point, a value estimated by the learning-completed learning model 26 based on the SOH at a time point before the first time point can also be used. Thus, the SOH can be continuously estimated in any period. The second time point is a prediction target point at which the SOH is estimated. The time-series data relating to the state of the energy storage device (the time-series data relating to the SOC in FIG. 16) can be specified from the scheduled use condition of the energy storage device from the first time point to the second time point. The learning-completed learning model 26 estimates the SOH at the second time point with the SOH at the first time point and the time-series data as input data. Thus, when the SOH at the first time point (e.g., at present) and the scheduled use condition of the energy storage device from the first time point to the second time point (prediction target point) are known, the SOH at the second time point can be estimated”; see [0166]-[0167]), and
the estimation unit estimates, for each of the data values selected by the selection unit, a battery characteristic after operation corresponding to a case where the storage battery device is operated under the newly acquired operation condition on the basis of the newly acquired battery characteristic and the newly acquired operation condition (see id.).
Regarding claim 4, UKUMORI further teaches:
wherein
the estimation unit includes a first estimation unit and a second estimation unit in multiple stages to estimate a battery characteristic (i.e., “as SOHte1 at the first time point, a value estimated by the learning-completed learning model 26 based on the SOH at a time point before the first time point can also be used. Thus, the SOH can be continuously estimated in any period. The second time point is a prediction target point at which the SOH is estimated. The time-series data relating to the state of the energy storage device (the time-series data relating to the SOC in FIG. 16) can be specified from the scheduled use condition of the energy storage device from the first time point to the second time point. The learning-completed learning model 26 estimates the SOH at the second time point with the SOH at the first time point and the time-series data as input data. Thus, when the SOH at the first time point (e.g., at present) and the scheduled use condition of the energy storage device from the first time point to the second time point (prediction target point) are known, the SOH at the second time point can be estimated”; see [0166]-[0167]), and
the second estimation unit estimates a future battery characteristic to be obtained after a time point of a battery characteristic estimated by the first estimation unit (see id.).
Regarding claim 5, UKUMORI further teaches:
wherein the selection unit selects the data values on the basis of a distribution of the data value group (i.e., ., “the input data for life estimation may be ninety SOC values from time te1 (e.g., at present) to time te90, ninety temperature values from time te1 to time te90, and SOHte1 at time te1”; see [0165] and FIG. 16; “the temperature time-series data is input, but a required temperature (e.g., average temperature from time point t1 to time point tn) may be input instead of the temperature time-series data”; see [0182]).
Regarding claim 6, UKUMORI further teaches:
wherein the selection unit selects at least two data values from among a maximum value, a minimum value, and an average value of the data values (i.e., “the temperature time-series data is input, but a required temperature (e.g., average temperature from time point t1 to time point tn) may be input instead of the temperature time-series data”; see [0182]).
Regarding claim 7, UKUMORI further teaches:
wherein the battery characteristic includes one or both of a battery capacity and an internal resistance (i.e., SOH; see [0165]), as data items representing a battery characteristic of the entire storage battery device or a battery characteristic of each of the storage batteries (i.e., “The processing unit 23 operates in a learning mode for causing the learning model 26 to learn and an estimation mode for estimating a state of health (SOH) (estimating degradation) of the energy storage device by using the learning-completed learning model 26”; see [0129]).
Regarding claim 8, UKUMORI further teaches:
wherein the operation condition includes one or all of a temperature, an applied voltage, an applied current, and a charging rate, as data items representing an operation condition of the overall storage battery device or an operation condition of each of the storage batteries (i.e., “the input data for life estimation may be ninety SOC values from time te1 (e.g., at present) to time te90, ninety temperature values from time te1 to time te90, and SOHte1 at time te1”; see [0165] and FIG. 16).
Regarding claim 11, UKUMORI further teaches:
wherein the hardware processor is configured to further function as a change unit to change the battery characteristic or the operation condition to be input to the estimation unit in accordance with a difference between the battery characteristic estimated by the estimation unit and a predetermined target value (i.e., “By using the SOH at the first time point, it is also possible to determine, based on the first time point, how to set the scheduled use condition of the energy storage device from the first time point to the second time point to make the SOH at the second time point larger (prevent a decrease in SOH)”; see [0167]; note that “to make the SOH at the second time point larger” implies comparing the SOH with an expected target value).
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 1 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
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.
Claims 2, 9, 10, 12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UKUMORI.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 10, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
UKUMORI does not explicitly disclose:
(claim 2) wherein the hardware processor is configured to further function as a display control unit to cause a display device to display the battery characteristic estimated by the estimation unit in a comparable state.
(claim 9) wherein the display control unit causes the display device to display a distribution of the battery characteristics estimated for the respective data values.
(claim 10) wherein the display control unit causes the display device to display each of the battery characteristics estimated by the estimation unit in a distinguishable state.
But UKUMORI further teaches:
graphical representation of a distribution of the battery characteristics estimated by the estimation unit in a comparable state, each of the estimated battery characteristics being distinguishable (i.e., “FIG. 18 is a schematic diagram showing an example of the degradation estimation result of the energy storage device”; see [0091] and FIG. 18; see, also, FIGs. 15 and 22 showing SOH at different times and conditions, i.e., distinguishable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify UKUMORI such that the hardware processor is configured to further function as a display control unit to cause a display device to display the battery characteristic estimated by the estimation unit in a comparable state; the display control unit causes the display device to display a distribution of the battery characteristics estimated for the respective data values; and the display control unit causes the display device to display each of the battery characteristics estimated by the estimation unit in a distinguishable state, as claimed. The rationale would be to provide visual feedback regarding the perdition.
Regarding claim 12, UKUMORI further teaches:
wherein
the estimation unit estimates the battery characteristic (i.e., “By using the SOH at the first time point, it is also possible to determine, based on the first time point, how to set the scheduled use condition of the energy storage device from the first time point to the second time point to make the SOH at the second time point larger (prevent a decrease in SOH)”; see [0167]) and estimates a battery state (i.e., “the SOH can be continuously estimated in any period”; see [0166]) of the entire storage battery device or a battery state of each of the storage batteries related to the battery characteristic (i.e., “ The energy storage module group L has a hierarchical structure of, for example, an energy storage module (also called a module) in which a plurality of energy storage cells (also called a cell) are connected in series, a bank in which a plurality of energy storage modules are connected in series, and a domain in which a plurality of banks are connected in parallel”; see [0107]), and
the change unit changes the battery characteristic or the operation condition input to the estimation unit (i.e., “By using the SOH at the first time point, it is also possible to determine, based on the first time point, how to set the scheduled use condition of the energy storage device from the first time point to the second time point to make the SOH at the second time point larger (prevent a decrease in SOH)”; see [0167]).
UKUMORI does not explicitly disclose (see only the underlined):
the change unit changes the battery characteristic or the operation condition input to the estimation unit in accordance with a difference between the battery state and the predetermined target value.
However, because an estimated SOH at a time point depends on the SOH and states at previous time points, and UKUMORI teaches changing inputted conditions to make an SOH larger (see [0167]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify UKUMORI such that the change unit changes the battery characteristic or the operation condition input to the estimation unit in accordance with a difference between the battery state and the predetermined target value, as claimed. The rationale would be to make the consecutive SOHs within desired target ranges by changing the input conditions.
Regarding claims 15-17, the claims recite the same substantive further limitations as claims 2, 9, 10 respectively and are rejected by applying the same teachings.
Notes
Claim 13 distinguishes over the closest prior art of record as discussed below.
Regarding claim 13, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the features: “wherein the battery state includes one or all of a temperature, an applied voltage, an applied current, and a charging rate of the entire storage battery device or the storage battery,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant. The claim depends on claim 12 which requires estimating the battery state for comparison with a predetermined target values. UKUMORI only teaches estimating the battery states: SOHs (see [0166]) or SOCs (see [0052]), but does not teach or suggest the battery state to be one or all of a temperature, an applied voltage, an applied current, and a charging rate of the entire storage battery device or the storage battery. None of the prior art of record teaches or suggests the above indicated features.
Prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wampler et al. (US 20210080506 A1) teaches a method for monitoring a charge capacity of a battery, involving determining a predicted charge capacity and a first uncertainty parameter based upon the current, voltage, and temperature of the battery, wherein the predicted charge capacity is determined by executing a charge capacity degradation model.
LEE et al. (US 20200386819 A1) teaches a method of predicting variations in a capacity of a battery, involving a prediction unit to obtain a relative capacity variation prediction value, which is output from the artificial intelligence model when the number of charge and discharge cycles and the charge and discharge conditions of the battery are input to the artificial intelligence model.
YAMAUCHI et al. (WO 2014132332 A1) teaches a method of estimating a life of a battery, involving a degradation-prediction-calculation condition unit to which conditions for using a battery are input.
ITAKURA et al. (WO 2015041093 A1) teaches a method of predicting future performance of a storage cell while taking into account future use by a user.
MORITA et al. (US 20160011274 A1) teaches a battery life estimation method, involving estimating a degradation amount by integrating residence times on a battery voltage temperature plane in a degradation characteristic map based on battery characteristic data at the present time and use condition data.
HAMAOKA et al. (US 20140084867 A1) teaches a method of battery life prediction, involving calculating a time difference between a cell temperature value and a cell voltage value, or a time difference between the cell temperature value and a current value according to a history of each value stored in a memory and determining a degree of deterioration for each cell according to the time difference.
Rong et al. ("An Analytical Model for Predicting the Remaining Battery Capacity of Lithium-Ion Batteries" IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VERY LARGE SCALE INTEGRATION (VLSI) SYSTEMS, VOL. 14, NO. 5, MAY 2006) teaches a closed form analytical expression for predicting the remaining capacity of a lithium-ion battery. The proposed high-level model, which relies on online current and voltage measurements, correctly accounts for the temperature and cycle aging effects.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857