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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 18 August 2025 have been fully considered. The rejections under section 112 are overcome by amendment. The rejection under section 101 is maintained. Applicant argues that decoding battery data using a CAN DBC file is not practically performable in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees. See Falch, CAN DBC File Explained – A Simple Intro [+Editor Playground] (file wrapper, 13 September 2024). As stated in the grounds of rejection, “The invention is nothing more than applying conventional cloud computing, which “meet[s] the increasing demand for high-computing power” to the problem of a lack of computing power on a microcontroller local to the CAN bus. Specification [002]-[003].” Using computers in a conventional manner, i.e., by offloading data processing from a local device to the cloud, is well-understood, routine, and conventional, and therefore does not improve a computer performing the recited mental process of decoding a battery data using a CAN DBC file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 19:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “decode the battery data sent by the client device,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “decoding” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the semantic meaning of the battery data based on the DBC file. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “wherein, the battery data is decoded with the configuration file provided by the client device, the configuration file is a CAN DBC file, which is used to define messages and signals in a CAN bus network, wherein the decoded battery data is used for state of charge (SOC) estimation, state of health (SOH) prediction, and thermal runaway detection of batteries in the client device,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “decoding” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the semantic meaning of the battery data based on the DBC file. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely decoding battery data sent by a client device using a CAN DBC file.
The abstract idea of decoding battery data sent by a client device using a CAN DBC file is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “a processor coupled to a data store,” is generic computer hardware. MPEP § 2106.05(b).
The additional element, “a communication link coupled to the data processing device and a client device coupled to the communication link,” is generic computer hardware. MPEP § 2106.05(b).
The additional element, “a configuration file configured to be transmitted from the client device to the data processing device via the communication link,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “wherein a battery management system is configured to send battery data to the data processing device via the communication link,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “wherein the battery management system is configured to store a configuration file that, when transmitted from the client device to the data processing device via the communication link, causes the processor to decode the battery data sent by the client device,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely automates the existing manual process of decoding battery data using a CAN DBC file according to a configuration file. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “a configuration file configured to be transmitted from the client device to the data processing device via the communication link,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “wherein a battery management system is configured to send battery data to the data processing device via the communication link,” is described by the Specification, Specification [002] (“Traditionally, BMS gathers data from batteries in EV or ESS through Controller Area Network (CAN) protocol”), as well-understood or routine or conventional. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
The additional element, “wherein the battery management system is configured to store a configuration file that, when transmitted from the client device to the data processing device via the communication link, causes the processor to decode the battery data sent by the client device,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of decoding battery data sent by a client device using a CAN DBC file because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The invention is nothing more than applying conventional cloud computing, which “meet[s] the increasing demand for high-computing power” to the problem of a lack of computing power on a microcontroller local to the CAN bus. Specification [002]-[003].
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 20:
The abstract idea of decoding battery data sent by a client device is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the client device sends the battery data via a CAN protocol,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely automates the existing manual process of decoding battery data according to a configuration file. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein the client device sends the battery data via a CAN protocol,” is described by the Specification, Specification [002] (“Traditionally, BMS gathers data from batteries in EV or ESS through Controller Area Network (CAN) protocol”), as well-understood or routine or conventional. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of analyzing battery data because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The invention is nothing more than applying conventional cloud computing, which “meet[s] the increasing demand for high-computing power” to the problem of a lack of computing power on a microcontroller local to the CAN bus. Specification [002]-[003].
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 21:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the battery data is pushed into a buffer sequentially, wherein the earliest battery data is popped out from the buffer,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “pushing” and “popping” encompasses a person keeping track of data using pen and paper, such as in Figure 2. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 22:
The abstract idea of decoding battery data sent by a client device is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “the popped battery data is configured to be decoded with a CAN DBC file provided by the client device,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely automates the existing manual process of decoding battery data according to a configuration file. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “the popped battery data is configured to be decoded with a CAN DBC file provided by the client device,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of analyzing battery data because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The invention is nothing more than applying conventional cloud computing, which “meet[s] the increasing demand for high-computing power” to the problem of a lack of computing power on a microcontroller local to the CAN bus. Specification [002]-[003].
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 23:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the decoded battery data is configured to be packed into a JSON file,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “packing” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the content of the JSON file. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). and transmitted to a cloud server.
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
The abstract idea of packing battery data into a JSON file is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the decoded battery data is [] transmitted to a cloud server,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of packing battery data into a JSON file with the technological environment of cloud computing. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein the decoded battery data is [] transmitted to a cloud server,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of analyzing battery data because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The invention is nothing more than applying conventional cloud computing, which “meet[s] the increasing demand for high-computing power” to the problem of a lack of computing power on a microcontroller local to the CAN bus. Specification [002]-[003].
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 24:
The abstract idea of decoding battery data sent by a client device is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “the client device comprises a battery management system (BMS), the BMS gathers the battery data from batteries in the client device,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely automates the existing manual process of decoding battery data according to a configuration file. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “the client device comprises a battery management system (BMS), the BMS gathers the battery data from batteries in the client device,” is described by the Specification, Specification [002] (“Traditionally, BMS gathers data from batteries in EV or ESS through Controller Area Network (CAN) protocol”), as well-understood or routine or conventional. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of analyzing battery data because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The invention is nothing more than applying conventional cloud computing, which “meet[s] the increasing demand for high-computing power” to the problem of a lack of computing power on a microcontroller local to the CAN bus. Specification [002]-[003].
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 25:
The abstract idea of decoding battery data sent by a client device is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein transmitting the JSON file to a cloud server comprises transmitting the JSON file to the cloud server via MQTT protocol through data distribution server,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely automates the existing manual process of decoding battery data according to a configuration file. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein transmitting the JSON file to a cloud server comprises transmitting the JSON file to the cloud server via MQTT protocol through data distribution server,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described as a commercially available product, Specification [0056] (“Message Queuing Telemetry Transport”), and in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of analyzing battery data because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The invention is nothing more than applying conventional cloud computing, which “meet[s] the increasing demand for high-computing power” to the problem of a lack of computing power on a microcontroller local to the CAN bus. Specification [002]-[003].
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 26:
The abstract idea of decoding battery data sent by a client device is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the CAN DBC file is provided by the BMS,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering, and merely covers the idea of an outcome without covering a particular way to achieve the desired outcome. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely automates the existing manual process of decoding battery data according to a configuration file. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein the CAN DBC file is provided by the BMS,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of analyzing battery data because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The invention is nothing more than applying conventional cloud computing, which “meet[s] the increasing demand for high-computing power” to the problem of a lack of computing power on a microcontroller local to the CAN bus. Specification [002]-[003].
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 27:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “the decoded battery data is associated with a topic based on content of the battery data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “associating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the topic of the battery data. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art does not teach a need for higher computing power to process battery data such that it would be necessary to package the battery data and configuration file to decode the battery data together to offload processing, and therefore the invention is obvious only in hindsight. That being said, the invention as disclosed is not directed to a patentable invention because it is, as an ordered combination, directed to the mere idea of offloading processing of battery data to the cloud using generic computer functions and/or well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
WILLIAM SPIELER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2159
/WILLIAM SPIELER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159