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
Claim Objections
Based on applicant’s filed amendments, the previously set forth claim objections have been overcome.
112 Rejections
Based on applicant’s filed amendments, the previously set forth 112 rejections of claims 2-5 and 12-17 have been withdrawn.
102 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 18, the recited “to determine whether an update period has been reached” is unclear. How is this determination made as there is currently no time-stamp data or intervals defined which details a period of time being monitored or tracked. Therefore, the examiner is unable to apply art, as the scope of the claim is unclear. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chow et al. (2016/0209472).
With respect to claim 11, Chow teaches in Fig. 2 an electronic apparatus (200) comprising: a battery [0007]; a first calculator (220) configured to obtain sensing data of the battery [0007] using a sensor (Chow teaches the data being a voltage of a battery, a current such as the current to and from the battery, or a temperature of the battery sensed from sensor 211; [0058] [0061]), preprocess the obtained sensing data (as Chow teaches converting the obtained data using a processor task within the first calculator; [0120]), store a preprocessed sensing data in a first memory (231) and transmit (as indicated by the arrow in Fig. 2) the preprocessed sensing data (i.e. the preprocessed data; [0120], as Chow teaches 220 processes sensed data) to a second calculator (230) in response to a transmission period being reached (as indirectly taught and insofar as how time is tracked as currently claimed); and the second calculator (230) configured to receive the sensing data stored in the first memory (231) from the first calculator (220), determine state information of the battery (i.e. as Chow teaches using a Markov process model of the battery to calculated an aging state and RUL of the battery; [0077]) using a battery model [0077] and the received sensing data (via the senor 211), obtain estimation data of a voltage of the battery using the battery model (as Chow teaches using the model to predicated open circuit voltage of the battery; [0083]), estimating an aging variation of the battery based on the estimation data and measurement data of the voltage of the battery included in the preprocessed sensing data (as Chow teaches using the estimated data and measured data to determine a SOC, which is known as a battery’s aging process; [0098]), and control a display (232; [0081]) such that the determined state information is displayed on the display (as the aging information is presented to a user).
With respect to claim 12, Chow teaches in Fig. 2 the electronic apparatus (200) wherein the first calculator (220) is configured to: for the preprocessing of the obtained sensing data, obtain measurement data of a voltage of the battery (as Chow teaches in [0058] voltage being sensed by sensor 211); for the storing of the preprocessed sensing data (i.e. converted data), store the measurement data (from sensor 212) in the first memory (231); and transmit the measurement data to the second calculator (230) in response to a transmission period being reached (as Chow teaches using period of time to store and calculate the remaining useful time, thereby requiring the stored data to be transmitted to the calculators at appropriate times for calculations; insofar as how “a transmission period” is defined), and the second calculator (230) is configured to, for the determining of the state information (i.e. the remaining useful life determination performed by 230), and update an aging parameter of the battery model using the aging variation (as when using a Markov process model for battery remaining useful life (RUL), estimations involves identifying, modeling, and updating aging parameters of the models based on aging variations derived from measurement and estimation data; [0053]).
With respect to claim 13, Chow teaches in Fig. 2 the electronic apparatus (200) wherein the second calculator (230) is configured to store the updated aging parameter in a second memory (221; [0060]) of the second calculator (230) and transmit the updated aging parameter stored in the second memory (221) to the first calculator (220) in response to detecting that the electronic apparatus (200) enters a power-off state (as Chow teaches the process of determining the remaining useful life occurring over various operating power, [0052]), and the first calculator (220) is configured to store the updated aging parameter (as determined by 230) received from the second calculator (230) in the first memory (231; as the data is taught to be stored in the first memory 231 of the second calculator 230 which is communication with the first memory 231).
With respect to claim 19, Chow teaches in Fig. 2 the electronic apparatus wherein the first calculator (220) is configured to obtain measurement data of a voltage of the battery (via sensors 211), obtain estimation data of the voltage of the battery using the battery model (using the Markov process model of the battery), estimate an aging variation of the battery using the estimation data and the measurement data (i.e. as Chow teaches using a Markov process model of the battery to calculated an aging state and RUL of the battery; [0077]), update an aging parameter of the battery model using the aging variation, and transmit the updated aging parameter to the second calculator (as when using a Markov process model for battery remaining useful life (RUL), estimations involves identifying, modeling, and updating aging parameters based on aging variations derived from measurement and estimation data; [0053]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chow et al. (2016/0209472) in view of Tao (DE 112015001517 T5).
With respect to claim 1, Chow teaches in Fig. 2 an electronic apparatus (200) comprising: a battery [0007]; a first calculator (220) configured to obtain sensing data (Chow teaches the data being a voltage of a battery, a current such as the current to and from the battery, or a temperature of the battery sensed from sensor 211; [0058] [0061]) of the battery using a sensor (211), determine first state information [0058] [0061] of the battery using the obtained sensing data (via sensor 211) and a first battery model (i.e. a partial cycle model of the battery; [0048]), and preprocess the obtained sensing data (as Chow teaches converting the obtained data using a processor task within the first calculator; [0120]); and a second calculator (230) configured to receive the preprocessed sensing data from the first calculator (210, as shown in Fig. 2), determine an aging state of the battery using a second battery model (i.e. a Markov process model of the battery; [0077]) and the received sensing data (from sensor 211), update a parameter of the first battery model (220) based on the determined aging state (as Chow teaches adjusting a model parameter of the partial cycle model of the first battery model of the first calculator based on the determined aging state, i.e. remaining useful life, [0078]), and transmit the updated parameter to the first calculator (220), wherein, in response to receiving the updated parameter from the second calculator (230), the first calculator (220) is configured to apply the updated parameter to the first battery model (i.e. the partial cycle model) such that the determined aging state is reflected in the first battery model (as the updated partial cycle model parameter based one the remaining useful life acts as a new constraint or feedback to that model).
Chow remains silent regarding the first calculator includes a first memory that stores the first battery model, and the second calculator includes a second memory storing the second battery model.
Tao teaches a similar operating state estimation device in Fig. 12 that includes a first calculator (101) with a first memory (160) and a second calculator (102) with a second memory (170) both configured to store historical and pattern data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify electronic apparatus of Chow such that each calculator has its own memory, as taught in Tao because such a modification allows for parallel processing, while lowering latency.
The method steps of claim 20 are performed during the operation of the rejected structure of claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, Chow teaches in Fig. 2 the electronic apparatus (200) wherein the first calculator (220) is configured to: for the preprocessing of the obtained sensing data, obtain measurement data of a voltage of the battery (as Chow teaches in [0058] voltage being sensed by sensor 211); for the storing of the preprocessed sensing data (i.e. converted data), store the measurement data (from sensor 212) in the first memory (231) of the first calculator (220; as the storage data is accessible by the first calculator); and transmit the measurement data to the second calculator (230) in response to a transmission period being reached (as Chow teaches using period of time to store and calculate the remaining useful time, thereby requiring the stored data to be transmitted to the calculators at appropriate times for calculations; insofar as how “a transmission period” is defined), and the second calculator (230) is configured to, for the determining of the aging state of the battery (i.e. the remaining useful life determination performed by 230), obtain estimation data of a voltage of the battery using the second battery model (the Markov process model of the battery), estimate an aging variation of the battery based on the estimation data and the measurement data (via sensor 211), and update an aging parameter of the second battery model using the aging variation (as when using a Markov process model for battery remaining useful life (RUL), estimations involves identifying, modeling, and updating aging parameters of the models based on aging variations derived from measurement and estimation data; [0053]).
With respect to claim 3, Chow teaches in Fig. 2 the electronic apparatus (200) wherein the second calculator (230) is configured to store the updated aging parameter of the second battery model (i.e. as determined using the Markov process model, as disclosed) in a second memory (221; [0060]) of the second calculator (230) and transmit the updated aging parameter stored in the second memory (221) to the first calculator (220) in response to detecting that the electronic apparatus (200) enters a power-off state (as Chow teaches the process of determining the remaining useful life occurring over various operating power, [0052]), and the first calculator (220) is configured to store the updated aging parameter (as determined by 230) received from the second calculator (230) in the first memory (231) of the first calculator (220; as the data is taught to be stored in the first memory 231 of the second calculator 230 which is communication with the first memory 231).
With respect to claim 8, Chow teaches in Fig. 2 the electronic apparatus (200) wherein the first calculator (220) is configured to transmit the determined first state information [0058] to the second calculator (230, for life calculation), and the second calculator (230) is configured to control a display (232; [0081]) such that the received first state information [0058] is displayed on the display (as Chow teaches the display contains dials with a needle to indicate display features of the measured and calculated information).
With respect to claim 9, Chow teaches in Fig. 2 the electronic apparatus (200) wherein the first state information comprises state of charge (SOC) information of the battery [0061].
With respect to claim 10, Chow teaches in Fig. 2 the electronic apparatus (200) wherein the first calculator (220) is comprised in a power management integrated circuit (as Chow discloses Fig. 2 as being applicable to a BMS; [0116]), and the second calculator (230) is comprised in an application processor (as Chow teaches these calculators being processing devices running on application on those processors; [0120]).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chow et al. (2016/0209472) in view of Tao (DE 112015001517 T5), as applied to claim 2, further in view of Allam et al. (WO 2020186269).
With respect to claim 4, Chow teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 2, but remains silent regarding wherein, for the estimating of the aging variation, the second calculator is configured to: determine a resistance increase using a variation in the estimation data, a variation in the measurement data, and a current variation; and determine, as the aging variation, a variation in an anodic solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) resistance based on the resistance increase.
Allam et al. teaches a similar algorithmic process that includes determining a resistance increase using a variation in the estimation data, a variation in the measurement data, and a current variation; and determine, as the aging variation, a variation in an anodic solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) resistance based on the resistance increase (as in paragraphs [0041-0042], Allam et al. teaches determining a resistance increase by using variation in estimation data, specifically through an adaptive sliding mode interconnected observer, i.e. a calculator. The cathode and anode observers share information to ensure an accurate prediction of battery health, capacity and resistance, through understanding the cycling between electrodes and nonlinearities in the terminal voltage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the second calculator to include the taught control logic for determining a resistance and aging variation in an anodic solid, as taught by Allam et al. because such a modification allows a system to accurately illustrate to a user the real time battery status for improved usage; [0026].
With respect to claim 5, Chow teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 2 but remains silent regarding wherein the aging parameter comprises any one or any combination of any two or more of an anodic solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) resistance, a capacity of a cathode active material, and an electrode balance shift of the battery.
Allam et al. teaches a similar algorithmic process that includes two or more of an anodic solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) resistance regarding an aging parameter (as in paragraphs [0041-0042], Allam et al. teaches determining a resistance increase by using variation in estimation data, specifically through an adaptive sliding mode interconnected observer, i.e. a calculator. The cathode and anode observers share information to ensure an accurate prediction of battery health, capacity and resistance, through understanding the cycling between electrodes and nonlinearities in the terminal voltage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the second calculator to include the taught control logic for determining resistance and aging variation in an anodic solid, as taught by Allam et al. because such a modification allows a system to accurately illustrate to a user the real time battery status for improved usage; [0026].
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chow et al. (2016/0209472) in view of Tao (DE 112015001517 T5), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Jung et al. (2020/0103469).
With respect to claim 6, Chow teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 1, but remains silent regarding wherein the second calculator is configured to apply, in response to updating an aging parameter of the second battery model, the updated aging parameter of the second battery model to the second battery model, generate basic simulation data for preset charging currents using the second battery model to which the updated aging parameter is applied, generate an initial look-up table (LUT) for the charging currents and preset battery voltage limits based on the basic simulation data, generate a modified LUT by adjusting one or more initial charging limit conditions of the initial LUT in response to the initial LUT failing to satisfy a preset condition, determine a final LUT based on the modified LUT in response to the modified LUT satisfying the preset condition, and control charging of the battery based on the determined final LUT.
Jung et al. teaches a similar algorithmic approach which includes generating basic simulation data for preset charging currents using the second battery model to which the updated aging parameter is applied (as Jung et al. teaches in [0077, 0078; Fig 3, Fig 8]: more specifically, Fig 3 shows an initial LUT on the left hand side, which is described as being created based on the internal state of the battery and contains a series of steps in terms of battery voltage and electrode voltage, where each step is described as "using different currents", thereby reading in the claimed generate basic simulation data for preset currents using a model defined by initial LUT), generate an initial look-up table (LUT) for the charging currents and preset battery voltage limits based on the basic simulation data (as Jung et al. teaches generating an initial look-up table by optimizing charging limitations based the prior simulation data describing different current situation and the deterioration of the battery, i.e. aging, resulting in a number of possible charging schedules based on the prior simulated data; [0067-0068, 0078]), generate a modified LUT by adjusting one or more initial charging limit conditions of the initial LUT in response to the initial LUT failing to satisfy a preset condition (as Jung et al. teaches the selection of an optimal LUT from the initial LUT based on the among of change in the ageing rate by the LUTs; [0072]), determine a final LUT based on the modified LUT in response to the modified LUT satisfying the preset condition (once the thresholds have been satisfied, Jung teaches finalizing on the optimal LUT based on internal state of the battery; [0113-00119]), and control charging of the battery based on the determined final LUT (as [0113-0119] teach controlling the charging of the battery based on the determined final LUT).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the second calculator to include the taught algorithmic LUT process of Jung et al. because Jung et al. teaches such a modification improves the overall life of the battery by applying charging limitation suitable for determined aging mechanisms; [0081].
With respect to claim 7, Chow as modified by Jung et al. teaches wherein the second calculator (230, as modified by Jung et al.) is configured to transmit the determined final LUT (as determined according to Jung et al.) to the first calculator (220), and the first calculator (220) is configured to store the received determined final LUT in the first memory (231) of the first calculator (220, as Fig.2 of Chow depicts the interconnections of each calculator’s and the first memory).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chow et al. (2016/0209472) in view of Allam et al. (WO 2020186269).
With respect to claim 14, Chow teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 12, but remains silent regarding wherein, for the estimating of the aging variation, the second calculator is configured to: determine a resistance increase using a variation in the estimation data, a variation in the measurement data, and a current variation; and determine, as the aging variation, a variation in an anodic solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) resistance based on the resistance increase.
Allam et al. teaches a similar algorithmic process that includes determining a resistance increase using a variation in the estimation data, a variation in the measurement data, and a current variation; and determine, as the aging variation, a variation in an anodic solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) resistance based on the resistance increase (as in paragraphs [0041-0042], Allam et al. teaches determining a resistance increase by using variation in estimation data, specifically through an adaptive sliding mode interconnected observer, i.e. a calculator. The cathode and anode observers share information to ensure an accurate prediction of battery health, capacity and resistance, through understanding the cycling between electrodes and nonlinearities in the terminal voltage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the second calculator to include the taught control logic for determining a resistance and aging variation in an anodic solid, as taught by Allam et al. because such a modification allows a system to accurately illustrate to a user the real time battery status for improved usage; [0026].
With respect to claim 15, Chow teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 12 but remains silent regarding wherein the aging parameter comprises any one or any combination of any two or more of an anodic solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) resistance, a capacity of a cathode active material, and an electrode balance shift of the battery.
Allam et al. teaches a similar algorithmic process that includes two or more of an anodic solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) resistance regarding an aging parameter (as in paragraphs [0041-0042], Allam et al. teaches determining a resistance increase by using variation in estimation data, specifically through an adaptive sliding mode interconnected observer, i.e. a calculator. The cathode and anode observers share information to ensure an accurate prediction of battery health, capacity and resistance, through understanding the cycling between electrodes and nonlinearities in the terminal voltage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the second calculator to include the taught control logic for determining resistance and aging variation in an anodic solid, as taught by Allam et al. because such a modification allows a system to accurately illustrate to a user the real time battery status for improved usage; [0026].
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chow et al. (2016/0209472) in view of Jung et al. (2020/0103469).
With respect to claim 16, Chow teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 11, but remains silent regarding wherein the second calculator is configured to apply, in response to updating an aging parameter of the second battery model, the updated aging parameter of the second battery model to the second battery model, generate basic simulation data for preset charging currents using the second battery model to which the updated aging parameter is applied, generate an initial look-up table (LUT) for the charging currents and preset battery voltage limits based on the basic simulation data, generate a modified LUT by adjusting one or more initial charging limit conditions of the initial LUT in response to the initial LUT failing to satisfy a preset condition, determine a final LUT based on the modified LUT in response to the modified LUT satisfying the preset condition, and control charging of the battery based on the determined final LUT.
Jung et al. teaches a similar algorithmic approach which includes generating basic simulation data for preset charging currents using the second battery model to which the updated aging parameter is applied (as Jung et al. teaches in [0077, 0078; Fig 3, Fig 8]: more specifically, Fig 3 shows an initial LUT on the left hand side, which is described as being created based on the internal state of the battery and contains a series of steps in terms of battery voltage and electrode voltage, where each step is described as "using different currents", thereby reading in the claimed generate basic simulation data for preset currents using a model defined by initial LUT), generate an initial look-up table (LUT) for the charging currents and preset battery voltage limits based on the basic simulation data (as Jung et al. teaches generating an initial look-up table by optimizing charging limitations based the prior simulation data describing different current situation and the deterioration of the battery, i.e. aging, resulting in a number of possible charging schedules based on the prior simulated data; [0067-0068, 0078]), generate a modified LUT by adjusting one or more initial charging limit conditions of the initial LUT in response to the initial LUT failing to satisfy a preset condition (as Jung et al. teaches the selection of an optimal LUT from the initial LUT based on the among of change in the ageing rate by the LUTs; [0072]), determine a final LUT based on the modified LUT in response to the modified LUT satisfying the preset condition (once the thresholds have been satisfied, Jung teaches finalizing on the optimal LUT based on internal state of the battery; [0113-00119]), and control charging of the battery based on the determined final LUT (as [0113-0119] teach controlling the charging of the battery based on the determined final LUT).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the second calculator to include the taught algorithmic LUT process of Jung et al. because Jung et al. teaches such a modification improves the overall life of the battery by applying charging limitation suitable for determined aging mechanisms; [0081].
With respect to claim 17, Chow as modified by Jung et al. teaches wherein the second calculator (230, as modified by Jung et al.) is configured to transmit the determined final LUT (as determined according to Jung et al.) to the first calculator (220), and the first calculator (220) is configured to store the received determined final LUT in the first memory (231) of the first calculator (220, as Fig.2 of Chow depicts the interconnections of each calculator’s and the first memory).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park et al. (2018/0095140) which teaches a battery management system that estimates the parameters of that battery via a battery model.
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 MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights