DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/30/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are now pending in the application. Applicant's amendments have addressed all informalities as previously set forth in the non-final action mailed on 08/12/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (See 2019 Update: Eligibility Guidance).
Independent Claim(s) 1, 11 recites
determine whether a diffusion length of an intercalation material in an electrode of a battery is less than a threshold,
calculate a concentration of the intercalation material in the electrode based on a result of the determination, and
estimate at least one battery parameter of the battery parameters based on the concentration of the intercalation material
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation].
In combination with Independent Claim(s) 1, 11, Claim(s) 2-10, 12-20 recite(s)
wherein
the determining of whether the diffusion length of the intercalation material is lesser than the threshold comprises
determining whether the diffusion length is lesser than the threshold based on
a diffusivity of the intercalation material in the electrode,
a value of a time variable, and
a radius of the electrode.
wherein
the determining of whether the diffusion length of the intercalation material is lesser than the threshold comprises
determining that the diffusion length is lesser than the threshold in response to a square root of a product of a diffusivity of the intercalation material and a value of a time variable being lesser than a product of a radius of the electrode and a coefficient less than 1.
wherein
the calculating of the concentration of the intercalation material comprises:
calculating parameters comprising
an equilibrium concentration of the intercalation material,
a scaled concentration of the intercalation material,
a reaction flux,
a diffusivity of the intercalation material in the electrode, and
a value of a time variable,
in response to the diffusion length of the intercalation material being lesser than the threshold; and
calculating a concentration of the intercalation material based on the parameters.
wherein
the processor is further configured to
calculate the concentration of the intercalation material in the electrode,
in response to
a diffusion length of a positive electrode and a negative electrode of the battery being lesser than the threshold.
wherein
the calculating of the concentration of the intercalation material comprises
calculating a scaled concentration of the intercalation material based on a similarity variable.
wherein
the calculating of the scaled concentration comprises
calculating the similarity variable based on
a thickness of a boundary of the electrode,
a diffusivity of the intercalation material in the electrode, and
wherein
the estimating of the at least one battery parameter comprises
estimating at least one of
a state of health of the battery, a state of charge of the battery, electrochemical parameters of the battery, or a state of short of the battery.
wherein
the estimating of the at least one battery parameter comprises
estimating at least one of
a state of charge of the battery or electrochemical parameters of the battery
based on
an open circuit voltage and electrode time constant dependent logarithmic voltage profiles.
wherein
the estimating of the at least one battery parameter comprises:
estimating electrochemical parameters of the battery; and
estimating at least one of a state of health of the battery or a state of short of the battery based on the electrochemical parameters
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (i.e. a processor configured to; a non-transitory computer readable meadium);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) (i.e. battery).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (i.e. See Alice Corp. and cited references for evidence of additional elements (i.e., generic computer structure)).
Allowable Subject Matter (over Prior Art)
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art:
None of the cited prior art alone or in combination provides motivation to explicitly teach:
determine whether a diffusion length of an intercalation material in an electrode of a battery is less than a threshold,
calculate a concentration of the intercalation material in the electrode based on a result of the determination, and
estimate at least one battery parameter of the battery parameters based on the concentration of the intercalation material
of claim(s) 1, 10, 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 6-15, filed 10/30/2025, with respect to the 101 rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
“Claim rejection under 35 USC 101
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 USC 101. The rejection is respectfully traversed.
As an initial matter, Applicants respectfully submit that, in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the rejections set forth various alleged procedural and other errors as outlined below. Accordingly, if after reviewing Applicant's comments below traversing the rejection, the Office maintains the § 101 rejections, Applicants respectfully request that a new Non-Final Office Action be issued that properly addresses all of the issues as set forth below.
The Office has Failed to Address Each Claim Individually
First, Applicants respectfully submit that the outstanding rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC101 is clearly improper. Specifically, the rejection has not addressed each claim individually. Rather, the Office Action only summarizes that the chosen elements:
…
It is respectfully submitted that MPEP 2106.05 sets forth that "Examiners should examine each claim for eligibility separatelv, based on the particular elements recited therein. Claims should not be judged to automatically stand or fall with similar claims in an application. For instance, one claim may be ineligible because it is directed to a judicial exception without amounting to significantly more, but another claim dependent on the first may be eligible because it recites additional elements that do amount to significantly more."
Applicants respectfully submit that the failure of the Office to consider each claim individually contravenes the requirement set forth in MPEP 2106.05.
In rejecting claims 1 and 11 under the 35 USC101 rejection, the Office Action sets forth:
…”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
Examiner has properly examined and addressed each limitation of each claim individually and as a whole. Applicant has failed to identified which claim and/or limitation was not examined. Applicant merely disagrees with the formatting of the rejections. Applicant’s disagreement with the formatting of a rejection is not a persuasive reason for a new/2nd Non-Final. Examiner’s formatting of the 101 rejection(s) is proper.
-Applicant states
“i. Claims 1-20 do not recite mental processes abstract ideas
Applicant respectfully submits that, e.g., "determining whether a diffusion length of an intercalation material in an electrode of a battery is lesser than a threshold; calculating a concentration of the intercalation material in the electrode based on a result of the determination; and estimating at least one battery parameter of the battery parameters based on the concentration of the intercalation material," cannot practically be performed in the human mind, as the human mind is not equipped to perform such complex operation of the model.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits the present claims do not recite any mental processes deemed to be abstract ideas.”.
Examiner agrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
-Applicant states
“ii. Claims 1-20 do not recite mathematical concept abstract ideas
The January 2019 Guidance and the USPTO's October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility ("October 2019 Guidance") make clear that the present claims do not recite "mathematical concepts."
For instance, in Example 38 of the USPTO's "Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas" issued January 7, 2019, the claim recites "initializing a model of an analog circuit in the digital computer, said model including a location, initial value, and a manufacturing tolerance range for each of the circuit elements within the analog circuit; generating a normally distributed first random value for each circuit element, using a pseudo random number generator, based on a respective initial value and manufacturing tolerance range; and simulating a first digital representation of the analog circuit based on the first random value and the location of each circuit element within the analog circuit."
Yet, even though the claim of Example 38 recites "initializing a model,""generating a normally distributed first random value for each circuit element," etc., the Office nonetheless held "The claim does not recite a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation. While some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims."Id. Accordingly, the USPTO held Example 38 to recite neither mathematical concepts nor mental processes.
In contrast, in Example 41 in the USPTO's "Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas," the claim recites "encoding each of the message block word signals MA to produce a ciphertext word signal CA, whereby CA=MAe (mod n)," and the Office held "in this example, the 'encoding' step is determined to recite a mathematical concept because the claim explicitly recites a mathematical formula or calculation."
In the present application, with respect to whether claim 24 recites mathematical concepts, Applicant respectfully submits that the features of claim 24 are more analogous to those of Example 38 than those of Example 41, wherein, while some of the features of the independent claims may be based on mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits the present claims do not recite any mathematical concepts deemed to be abstract ideas.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
First and foremost, there isn’t a ‘claim 24’. For the sake of responding to the argument, Examiner will assume this is a typo and the argument is directed to claim(s) 1-20.
Applicant compares the claimed invention to Example 38. In contrast to the claimed invention, Example 38 is directed towards improving audio mixer simulations by more closely replicating the sound quality of an analog audio mixer by accounting for the slight variances in analog circuit values that are generated during the circuit’s manufacturing. The USPTO found said example to not recite any judicial exceptions. Even if a POSITA interpreted the claims to include a mathematical concept, the claims are directed towards improving audio mixing technology by replicating the sound quality of an analog audio mixer.
Applicant compares the claimed invention to Example 41. In contrast to the claimed invention, Example 41 is directed towards establishing cryptographic communications using an algorithm to encrypt a plaintext into a ciphertext. The USPTO found said example to recite a practical application. In particular, the combination of additional elements use the mathematical formulas and calculations in a specific manner that sufficiently limits the use of the mathematical concepts to the practical application of transmitting the ciphertext word signal to a computer terminal over a communication channel. Thus, the mathematical concepts are integrated into a process that secures private network communications, so that a ciphertext word signal can be transmitted between computers of people who do not know each other or who have not shared a private key between them in advance of the message being transmitted, where the security of the cipher relies on the difficulty of factoring large integers by computers.
Examiner’s BRI of the claimed inventions is generic computer structure being used as a tool to mathematically estimate battery parameters.
When examining step 2A Prong 1, Examiner determines if there is an abstract idea present. One skilled in the art can at least perform the identified abstract idea utilizing Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation. The arguments, in light of the specification, fail to convince the Examiner that utilizing Mathematical Concepts does not fit within the scope of the identified abstract limitations.
When examining step 2A Prong 2, Examiner examines the additional elements to determine if the identified abstract idea has been practically applied in a particular way in a particular technology. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination with the identified abstract idea, do not add anything beyond mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding generic ‘apply it’ language, and generically linking the identified abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use.
When examining step 2B, Examiner examines the additional elements to determine if they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The only additional element(s) is/are the generic computer structure being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. An improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
-Applicant states
“i. The present claims use the claimed features in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the claimed features
"A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception." January 2019 Guidance at 12, 13, 18 (emphasis added).
Applicant respectfully submits that the present claims impose a meaningful limit on the claimed features cited by the Office, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the claimed features cited by the Office.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
When examining step 2A Prong 2, Examiner examines the additional elements to determine if the identified abstract idea has been practically applied in a particular way in a particular technology. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination with the identified abstract idea, do not add anything beyond mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding generic ‘apply it’ language, and generically linking the identified abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use.
-Applicant states
“ii. The present claims recite features that reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to another technology or technical field
Moreover, the Guidance provides a non-exhaustive list of examples wherein claimed features integrate an alleged abstract idea into a practical application, including wherein an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. See January 2019 Guidance at 19, 20.
Further, if "the claim improves technology the claim imposes meaningful limits on any recited judicial exception," and "the claim would be eligible under the 2019 PEG at least at Step 2A Prong Two." October 2019 Guidance at 11.
"Consideration of improvements is relevant to the integration analysis regardless of the technology of the claimed invention. That is, the consideration applies equally whether it is a computer-implemented invention, an invention in the life sciences, or any other technology." October 2019 Guidance at 13.
In evaluating whether the claimed as a whole integrates an alleged abstract idea into a practical application, the Office must "give weight to all additional elements, whether or not they are conventional," as "revised Step 2A specifically excludes consideration of whether the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity." January 2019 Guidance at 19.
It is respectfully submitted that the claims address the technological problem of inaccurate battery parameter estimation under low diffusivity conditions by providing a method that determines diffusion length conditions and calculates concentration based on the determination.
The Detailed Description of the originally filed Specification, points out the following with respect to specific improvements on a technological problem to be solved:
[0006] …
[0047] …
[0048] …
[0049] …
[0050] …
[0051] …
[0052] …
[0053] …
[0089] …
[0090] …
[0091] …
[0092] …
[0095] …
[0096] …
[0097] …
[0098] …
[0099] …
As shown in the specification, when existing Single Particle Model (SPM) techniques are applied under low characteristic diffusivity conditions, they produce accumulated SOC errors much greater than 20% for a single discharge, leading to serious problems like over discharge, aging, short circuits, and unexpected shutdowns because the profile approximations used fail and are invalided when .
The claim, as a whole, resolves the technical problem by identifying when diffusion length falls below a predetermined threshold through the "determining whether a diffusion length of an intercalation material in an electrode of a battery is lesser than a threshold", then calculating concentration of the intercalation material based on that result of the determination through the "calculating a concentration of the intercalation material in the electrode based on a result of the determination", and providing accurate battery parameter estimates through the "estimating at least one battery parameter of the battery parameters based on the concentration of the intercalation material."
The technological improvement addresses the fundamental deficiency where profile approximations fails under low diffusivity conditions, thereby improving battery management system accuracy and preventing battery failures that occurs when diffusion length conditions are not properly accounted for in concentration calculations.
Furthermore, it is respectfully submitted that any contention that the benefit of the claims should have been recited in the body of the claims is deficient as a matter of law. See Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Inc., Case No. 2019-1835, at pp. 9-10 (Fed. Cir. April 30, 2020) ("Claims need not articulate the advantages of the claimed combinations to be eligible.")(Emphasis added).
Thus, it is respectfully submitted that all pending claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter, and respectfully requested that this rejection of 1-20 be withdrawn.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
When examining step 2A Prong 2, Examiner examines the additional elements to determine if the identified abstract idea has been practically applied in a particular way in a particular technology. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination with the identified abstract idea, do not add anything beyond mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding generic ‘apply it’ language, and generically linking the identified abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use.
When examining step 2B, Examiner examines the additional elements to determine if they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The only additional element(s) is/are the generic computer structure being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. An improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 15-20, filed 10/30/2025, with respect to the art rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
“Claim Rejection under 35 USC 102
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Howey et al. (KR 2018/0082936). This rejection is respectfully traversed.
By way of review, as a non-limiting example, independent claim 1 sets forth:
…
In rejecting claim 1, the Office Action sets forth:
…
As an initial matter, Applicant respectfully notes that it is difficult to understand precisely how the Howey disclosure has been applied to the individual features recited in the claim because the Office Action broadly recites the entire specification (e.g., Page(s) 5-18) of Howey as being applicable to the claim recitations, without specifically describing how the features described in the specification are considered to correspond to each of the recited features as recited in the claims.
MPEP § 2131 states that "'[a] claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.' Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987)" (emphasis added). "'The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ... claim.' Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989)" (emphasis added). Moreover, "[e]very element of the claimed invention must be literally present, arranged as in the claim."Id. (emphasis added).
Furthermore, 37 C.F.R. § 1.104 mandates that "... [w]hen a reference is complex or shows or describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable." 37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c)(2).
In the present case, the Office Action has not established that how each element of the claims is disclosed in Howey. In other words, Applicant is not put on notice as to the rationale behind the rejection and cannot adequately determine whether such basis is proper.
Because clear reasons for the rejection of various claimed features were not presented in the Office Action, and Applicant cannot reasonably determine which features of Howey are believed to correspond with such features recited in the claims, it is respecfully submitted that the rejections are improper and must be withdrawn.
Additionally, it appears that the United States Supreme Court values "reasons" in a rejection, and would likely require that such reasoning be applied to rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if presented with the issue, rather than just rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. For instance, MPEP § 2143, citing KSR, states that "[t]he key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit" (emphasis added, see also KSR Intl Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). While KSR and the cited section of the MPEP are directed to obviousness rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is apparent that the Supreme Court believes that a clear articulation of reasons is "the key" to supportable rejections by the USPTO.
Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the Office more specifically describe the asserted correspondence between features disclosed in the references and the individual claim features in future Office Actions, if any, so that Applicant may have a fair opportunity to submit a full response.
Nevertheless, in a bona fide attempt to expedite prosecution, Applicant hereby reviews the deficiencies in Howey.
Howey is directed to a method of estimating battery states (SOC/SOH) using predetermined parameters obtained from lookup tables. Howey also discusses an offline method for generating the predetermined parameters through impedance measurements and electrochemical model optimization.
Howey set forth:
…
While Howey discusses battery parameters and diffusion time constants, the diffusion time constants of Howey are predetermined, not variables to be compared against thresholds. The parameters were retrieved from lookup tables. There is no discussion in Howey regarding a diffusion length, thresholds for diffusion length measurements. There is also no discussion in Howey regarding concentration calculation being based on a threshold determination as recited as "calculating a concentration of the intercalation material in the electrode based on a result of the determination," of claim 1.
Howey also sets forth:
…
Equations 16 and 19 of Howey sets forth:
…
Again, as shown in Howey, parameters are predetermined and obtained from a table. Howey further discussed that the parameters are input to an electrochemical model. Thus, Howey cannot be reasonably interpreted as disclosing "estimating at least one battery parameter of the battery parameters based on the concentration of the intercalation material."
As shown above, Howey does not disclose or suggest, inter alia, "determining whether a diffusion length of an intercalation material in an electrode of a battery is lesser than a threshold; calculating a concentration of the intercalation material in the electrode based on a result of the determination; and estimating at least one battery parameter of the battery parameters based on the concentration of the intercalation material," as recited by claim 1.
Based on the above explanation of the actual disclosure Howey, it is respectfully submitted that Howey fails to disclose or suggest all claimed features of independent claim 1.
Based on the above explanation of the actual disclosure of Howey, it is further respectfully submitted that Howey, further fails to respectively disclose or suggest all claimed features of independent claim 11.
Accordingly, independent claims 1 and 11 are directed to patentable subject matter. The dependent claims are directed to patentable subject matter by virtue of their dependency as well as for the additional features recited. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection respectfully is requested.”.
Examiner agrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
Said rejection(s) has/have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND NIMOX whose telephone number is (469)295-9226. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 10am-8pm CT.
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.
RAYMOND NIMOX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/RAYMOND L NIMOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857