DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5 (filed 10/24/2023) have been considered in this action. Claims 1-5 are newly filed.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “MANAGEMENT DEVICE AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR MANAGING ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY-AND-DEMAND PLAN DURING ABNORMALITY”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “management device” in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Based upon the provided description, the management device contains a processor and memory that stores a program ([0007]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to the statutory category of invention of a machine.
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim(s) 1-5s are apparatus claims directed to (A) [Mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind]. The acts of estimating a recovery time and setting a vehicle to be used from claims #1 and #5 are directed to abstract ideas of mental processes. For example, the estimation of a recovery time is a process that, based upon the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes the estimation of a recovery time in the person’s mind, such as based on previous experience. For example, a person could think about when an abnormality of the same type in the past occurred and use the past time it took to recover as an estimate of how long it will take to recover from the current abnormality. The setting of an object vehicle which is a vehicle “to be used for an electric power supply-and-demand plan” is the simple determination in a person’s mind that once the recovery time has elapsed, the vehicle can be reconnected for charging and planned to be as such. Nothing in these limitations require the actual performance of charging or discharging, as the claim explicitly recites that the vehicle is merely planned to be used for charging or discharging.
Step 2A Prong Two:
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered individually and in combination because the additional elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites, in part, a management device comprising a processor and memory. These limitations describe the concept of (A), which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind without significantly more.
For example: limitation described as a management device that manages an electric power supply and demand in the preamble is extra solution activity and amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”, (see MPEP 2106.05(h): “..vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group”). In addition, the use of the processor and memory are elements that amount to little more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use that fail to place meaningful limits on the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(h): “…The courts often cite to Parker v. Flook as providing a classic example of a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components did not make the concept patentable") (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978)).”).
The abstract idea described in claims 1-5 is not meaningfully different than those abstract ideas found by the courts, therefor the claim is considered to be directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements of a management device in the form of processor and memory that are considered insignificant in that they are generic computer components for executing the abstract ideas. Looking at the limitations 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 another technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementations and functions.
Dependent claims 2-4 are drawn to further concepts that are capable of being performed in the human mind. For example, claim 2 recites that the abnormality occurred in the object vehicle, which are merely conditions surrounding what happens, but fails to limit the invention in any significant way beyond linking to a technological field (error/abnormality detection). The acts in claims 3 are further mental processing steps as the selection of a vehicle to be connected from a candidate group is easily capable of being performed mentally, as there is no limitation on how this selection is made; a person mentally could determine/select which in a plurality of vehicles could be charged next in a variety of different ways such as random, using a predetermined order, etc.. The acts of claim 4 require the use of planning the ordering of charging/discharging of vehicles, but these acts are also more than capable of being performed by a person mentally with the aid of pen and paper. For example, if there are only 5 vehicles, a person could mentally determine the order of 1-2-3-4-5, and when an abnormality is detected in vehicle 1, re-order the order to 2-3-4-5-1. These limitations are considered to be drawn to the abstract idea without adding significantly more.
In regards to Claim 5, a similar analysis can be applied to those limitations shared with claim 1. Claim 5 contains the additional elements of charging and discharging equipment, and a plurality of electric power regulation resources (i.e. batteries) which can be considered field of use type limitations that are common in the field of electric vehicle charging and planning. Nothing in claim 5 adds anything significantly more than those abstract ideas recognized in claim 1.
Claims 1-5 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more
Claim 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (English translation of KR 20210046479, hereinafter Park) in view of Lee et al. (English translation of KR 20200075055, hereinafter Lee).
In regards to Claim 1, Park teaches “A management device that manages an electric power supply-and-demand plan for a plurality of electric power regulation resources, each of which is electrically connectable to an electric power system via charging and discharging equipment” ([page 2] The present invention relates to an electric vehicle charging/discharging control system and control method, and more particularly, to control a plurality of electric vehicle chargers at the same time or to control an electric vehicle to charge a battery of an electric vehicle, or to convert the battery power of an electric vehicle into a power system. It relates to an electric vehicle charging and discharging control system and a control method for controlling so as to discharge; [page 3] the control system 300 may control the charger 200 to charge or discharge the electric vehicle 100 according to whether the user participates in a demand response (DR); wherein a demand response is a form of supply and demand; [page 4] , when receiving a DR command from the VGI device 310, the VxG device 320 may check whether a user participates in DR, and set a schedule for performing DR according to priority based on whether the user participates in DR. . The VxG device 320 may control the charging and discharging of the electric vehicle 100 by controlling the charger 200 according to a set schedule; wherein a schedule is a plan) “the management device comprising: a processor; and memory that stores a program executable by the processor” ([page 3] Referring to FIG. 2, a control system 300 according to an embodiment of the present invention may include a VGI device 310, a VxG device 320, and an SOC device 330; [page 5] the SOC device 330 may monitor the electric vehicle 100 in real time in a server, a mobile device, or a terminal, and manage an OBD (On Board Charger) terminal. For example, the SOC device 330 may monitor the electric vehicle in real time through the server and collect and manage data of the OBD terminal; wherein a server has processor and memory) “…and sets an object vehicle, in which is installed an electric power regulation resource that was connected to the charging and discharging equipment when the abnormality was detected, as a vehicle to be used for an electric power supply-and-demand plan after the predicted recovery time elapses at the charging and discharging equipment” ([page 3] The control system 300 may calculate the time and amount required to charge the battery based on the state of charge of the battery of the electric vehicle 100 and inform the user, and the electric vehicle 100 may be provided according to the charging/discharging condition input by the user. The charger 200 may be controlled to charge or discharge. …For example, when the user selects to participate in the DR, the control system 300 reduces the amount of power supplied to the electric vehicle 100, stops charging for a certain time, and then recharges after a certain time).
Park teaches that a charging can be stopped for a certain time in response to a user selection to participate in demand-response events, but fails to teach “estimates, when an abnormality that disables charging and discharging is detected, a predicted recovery time until recovery from the abnormality, in accordance with a type of the abnormality”.
Lee teaches “estimates, when an abnormality that disables charging and discharging is detected, a predicted recovery time until recovery from the abnormality, in accordance with a type of the abnormality” ([page 7] If the estimated leakage current is higher than the protection level (Yes in S110), the leakage current protection unit 230 may pause charging of the HV battery 300 by sending a request to stop charging to the HV battery 300 ( S130). After charging of the HV battery 300 is paused, the leakage current protection unit 230 may immediately control the DC relay 150 to cut off the leakage current path (S140). That is, when the DC relay 150 is off (off), since the Y-cap path with the DC power side component is blocked, the leakage current of the entire vehicle side is reduced, resulting in a common mode of the AC power 50 at present. It is possible to provide an environment capable of diagnosing whether or not leakage current caused by a power source is generated. Thereafter, after a predetermined time, the leakage current protection unit 230 may compare the estimated leakage current with a predetermined protection level again (S150). If the estimated leakage current is not higher than the protection level (No in S150), the leakage current protection unit 230 may turn on the DC relay 150 (S160); wherein the predetermined time is the predicted recovery time, because that is how long it waits until it attempts to re-establish charging and the type of abnormality is a leakage current detection).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the system which performs charging and discharging according to a charging and discharging schedule/plan and which is capable of determining to stop a charging and resume it after a certain time as taught by Park, with the use of the abnormality detection of Lee which determines when a leakage current is present and stops the charging for a predetermined amount of time according to the abnormality type being a leakage current type as taught by Lee, because it would gain the obvious benefit of Lee, namely the ability to sense and protect from leakage current ([page 2]). By combining these elements, it can be considered taking the known method of detecting a leakage current and pausing a charging by cutting off charging for a predetermined time before re-initializing charging as taught by Lee and using it to improve the supply and demand charging/discharging system of Park in a known way that achieves predictable results.
In regards to Claim 2, the combination of Park and Lee teach the management device as incorporated by claim 1 above. Lee further teaches “The management device according to claim 1, wherein the abnormality occurred in the object vehicle” ([page 7] If the estimated leakage current is not higher than the protection level (No in S110), the OBC 100 and the HV battery 300 may maintain a charging operation (S120). Of course, it is natural that step S110 may be repeated after a predetermined period has elapsed. If the estimated leakage current is higher than the protection level (Yes in S110), the leakage current protection unit 230 may pause charging of the HV battery 300 by sending a request to stop charging to the HV battery 300 ( S130)).
In regards to Claim 3, the combination of Park and Lee teach the management device as incorporated by claim 2 above. Park further teaches “The management device according to claim 2, wherein the processor selects, when the abnormality is detected, a vehicle to be connected to the charging and discharging equipment instead of the object vehicle, from among a candidate vehicle group used in the electric power supply-and-demand plan at the charging and discharging equipment, and adds the object vehicle to the candidate vehicle group” ([page 6] The VxG 320 may regenerate the schedule of the charger 200 based on the SOC state (S210). The VxG 320 may determine the priority of each charger 200 in consideration of the SOC state of the electric vehicle 100, the remaining charging time, and the location of the charger, and generate a schedule according to the priority. Here, the VxG device 320 may have a high priority in the order in which the SOC is high or the order set in the policy. The VxG device 320 may control charging and discharging of the electric vehicle 100 according to the regenerated schedule (S220). For example, when the user participates in DR, the VxG device 320 may control the amount of power supplied to the electric vehicle 100 being charged to be reduced and supplied. For example, the VxG device 320 may control the charger 200 to reduce the power supplied in 6kW or 7kW to 3kW and supply it to the electric vehicle 100. In addition, the VxG device 320 may temporarily stop charging the electric vehicle 100 being charged. The VxG device 320 may stop charging the electric vehicle 100 for a while, and then control the charger 200 to be charged again after a certain period of time has passed; wherein the priority of charging are candidate vehicles; wherein the priority list is a candidate group, and because the vehicle being charged is paused and then resumed, it is added again to the schedule that is based on priority on the basis of state of charge).
In regards to Claim 4, the combination of Park and Lee teach the management device as incorporated by claim 3 above. Park further teaches “The management device according to claim 3, wherein: an order of connection to the charging and discharging equipment is set for each vehicle in the candidate vehicle group” ([page 6] The VxG 320 may regenerate the schedule of the charger 200 based on the SOC state (S210). The VxG 320 may determine the priority of each charger 200 in consideration of the SOC state of the electric vehicle 100, the remaining charging time, and the location of the charger, and generate a schedule according to the priority. Here, the VxG device 320 may have a high priority in the order in which the SOC is high or the order set in the policy. The VxG device 320 may control charging and discharging of the electric vehicle 100 according to the regenerated schedule (S220)) “and when adding the object vehicle to the candidate vehicle group, the processor determines the order of connecting the object vehicle to the charging and discharging equipment based on the predicted recovery time” ([page 3] the control system 300 may control the charger 200 to charge or discharge the electric vehicle 100 according to whether the user participates in a demand response (DR). For example, when the user selects to participate in the DR, the control system 300 reduces the amount of power supplied to the electric vehicle 100, stops charging for a certain time, and then recharges after a certain time, The charger 200 may be controlled so that power of the electric vehicle 100 is discharged to the power system. Meanwhile, when the user selects not to participate in the DR, the control system 300 may charge the electric vehicle 100 according to a charging condition input by the user [page 6] The VxG 320 may regenerate the schedule of the charger 200 based on the SOC state (S210). The VxG 320 may determine the priority of each charger 200 in consideration of the SOC state of the electric vehicle 100, the remaining charging time, and the location of the charger, and generate a schedule according to the priority. Here, the VxG device 320 may have a high priority in the order in which the SOC is high or the order set in the policy).
In regards to Claim 5, Park teaches “A management A management system, comprising: charging and discharging equipment; a plurality of electric power regulation resources, each of which is electrically connectable to an electric power system via the charging and discharging equipment; and” ([page 2] The present invention relates to an electric vehicle charging/discharging control system and control method, and more particularly, to control a plurality of electric vehicle chargers at the same time or to control an electric vehicle to charge a battery of an electric vehicle, or to convert the battery power of an electric vehicle into a power system. It relates to an electric vehicle charging and discharging control system and a control method for controlling so as to discharge; [page 3] the control system 300 may control the charger 200 to charge or discharge the electric vehicle 100 according to whether the user participates in a demand response (DR); wherein a demand response is a form of supply and demand; [page 4] , when receiving a DR command from the VGI device 310, the VxG device 320 may check whether a user participates in DR, and set a schedule for performing DR according to priority based on whether the user participates in DR. . The VxG device 320 may control the charging and discharging of the electric vehicle 100 by controlling the charger 200 according to a set schedule… The VGI device 310 is connected to an external system 500 such as a Korea Power Exchange (KPX) or a DR business operator or a distribution system operator (DSO); the chargers are the charging and discharging equipment, and the plurality of electric vehicles with batteries are the regulation resources) “a management device that manages an electric power supply-and-demand plan for the electric power regulation resources” ([page 3] Referring to FIG. 2, a control system 300 according to an embodiment of the present invention may include a VGI device 310, a VxG device 320, and an SOC device 330; [page 5] the SOC device 330 may monitor the electric vehicle 100 in real time in a server, a mobile device, or a terminal, and manage an OBD (On Board Charger) terminal. For example, the SOC device 330 may monitor the electric vehicle in real time through the server and collect and manage data of the OBD terminal; wherein a server has processor and memory) “…and sets an object vehicle, in which is installed an electric power regulation resource that was connected to the charging and discharging equipment when the abnormality was detected, as a vehicle to be used for an electric power supply-and-demand plan after the predicted recovery time elapses at the charging and discharging equipment.” ([page 3] The control system 300 may calculate the time and amount required to charge the battery based on the state of charge of the battery of the electric vehicle 100 and inform the user, and the electric vehicle 100 may be provided according to the charging/discharging condition input by the user. The charger 200 may be controlled to charge or discharge. …For example, when the user selects to participate in the DR, the control system 300 reduces the amount of power supplied to the electric vehicle 100, stops charging for a certain time, and then recharges after a certain time).
Park teaches that a charging can be stopped for a certain time in response to a user selection to participate in demand-response events, but fails to teach “estimates, when an abnormality that disables charging and discharging is detected, a predicted recovery time until recovery from the abnormality, in accordance with a type of the abnormality”.
Lee teaches “estimates, when an abnormality that disables charging and discharging is detected, a predicted recovery time until recovery from the abnormality, in accordance with a type of the abnormality” ([page 7] If the estimated leakage current is higher than the protection level (Yes in S110), the leakage current protection unit 230 may pause charging of the HV battery 300 by sending a request to stop charging to the HV battery 300 ( S130). After charging of the HV battery 300 is paused, the leakage current protection unit 230 may immediately control the DC relay 150 to cut off the leakage current path (S140). That is, when the DC relay 150 is off (off), since the Y-cap path with the DC power side component is blocked, the leakage current of the entire vehicle side is reduced, resulting in a common mode of the AC power 50 at present. It is possible to provide an environment capable of diagnosing whether or not leakage current caused by a power source is generated. Thereafter, after a predetermined time, the leakage current protection unit 230 may compare the estimated leakage current with a predetermined protection level again (S150). If the estimated leakage current is not higher than the protection level (No in S150), the leakage current protection unit 230 may turn on the DC relay 150 (S160); wherein the predetermined time is the predicted recovery time, because that is how long it waits until it attempts to re-establish charging and the type of abnormality is a leakage current detection).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the system which performs charging and discharging according to a charging and discharging schedule/plan and which is capable of determining to stop a charging and resume it after a certain time as taught by Park, with the use of the abnormality detection of Lee which determines when a leakage current is present and stops the charging for a predetermined amount of time according to the abnormality type being a leakage current type as taught by Lee, because it would gain the obvious benefit of Lee, namely the ability to sense and protect from leakage current ([page 2]). By combining these elements, it can be considered taking the known method of detecting a leakage current and pausing a charging by cutting off charging for a predetermined time before re-initializing charging as taught by Lee and using it to improve the supply and demand charging/discharging system of Park in a known way that achieves predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Matsuda et al. (US 20220289065) – teaches a charging management system that operates charging according to those which prevent degrading of the battery
Tsurutani et al. (US 20200114775) – teaches a charging pause that is used to stabilize a battery before subsequent charging
Lai et al. (US 20190207268) – teaches a battery management system that utilizes a priority for exchange in which a priority is changed on account of battery characteristics
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M SKRZYCKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0933. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-3:30.
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, Ken Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.
/JONATHAN MICHAEL SKRZYCKI/Examiner, Art Unit 2116