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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDSs) submitted on 02/29/2024 and 03/10/2025 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Regarding claim 21, the claim fails to recite that the computer-readable storage medium is non-statutory subject matter.
The rejection may be overcome by amending claim 21 to recite “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium…”.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A detection method for electrode plate, wherein the electrode plate comprises a coated portion and an uncoated portion located on at least one side of the coated portion in a longitudinal direction; and the detection method comprises:
step S1000: obtaining dimensional parameters D1 ... DN at different detection positions P1 ... PN of the uncoated portion in a transverse direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction; and
step S2000: comparing the dimensional parameters D1 ... DN with a dimensional detection standard S to determine whether the uncoated portion is folded, wherein N is a positive integer, and N is greater than or equal to 2.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Step 1: under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Process).
Step 2A, Prong One: under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, the limitation of “comparing the dimensional parameters D1 ... DN with a dimensional detection standard S to determine whether the uncoated portion is folded, wherein N is a positive integer, and N is greater than or equal to 2” is mental process (evaluation/judgement) based on mathematical calculations (see paras. [0052]-[0055] of instant application). The limitation of dimensional parameters is mathematical calculation because the limitation is a mathematical expression (see MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)C states that There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers human mind and mathematical calculations, then it falls within “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 11 and 22-24.
Step 2A, Prong Two: under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, none of the additional elements indicate a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: a detection method for electrode plate, wherein the electrode plate comprises a coated portion and an uncoated portion located on at least one side of the coated portion in a longitudinal direction (preamble); obtaining dimensional parameters D1 ... DN at different detection positions P1 ... PN of the uncoated portion in a transverse direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction;
In Claim 11: a detection apparatus for electrode plate, wherein the electrode plate comprises a coated portion and an uncoated portion located on at least one side of the coated portion in a longitudinal direction (preamble); obtain dimensional parameters D1 ... DN at different detection positions P1 ... PN of the uncoated portion in a transverse direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction;
In Claim 22: a stacking system (preamble); one or more processors; a non-transitory computer-readable media; obtain dimensional parameters D1 ... DN at different detection positions P1 ... PN of the uncoated portion in a transverse direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction; a stacking apparatus configured to stack electrode plates;
In Claim 23: a detection device for electrode plate, wherein the detection device comprises a memory and a processor in communication connection with the memory, wherein the memory stores machine-readable instructions, and when the machine-readable instructions are executed by the processor (preamble); obtaining dimensional parameters D1 ... DN at different detection positions P1 ... PN of the uncoated portion in a transverse direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction; and
In Claim 24: a detection device for electrode plate, wherein the detection device comprises a memory and a processor in communication connection with the memory, wherein the memory stores machine-readable instructions, and when the machine-readable instructions are executed by the processor (preamble); obtaining dimensional parameters D1 ... DN at different detection positions P1 ... PN of the uncoated portion in a transverse direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction.
The additional elements such as the electrode plate, detection apparatus, detection device, stacking system, computer-readable medium, processors, and memory in claims 1, 11, and 22-24 are recited at a high-level of generality without descriptions of its specific structure/features to perform the claimed features for producing the metal processes addressed above (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the additional element of “a detection method for electrode plate, wherein the electrode plate comprises a coated portion and an uncoated portion located on at least one side of the coated portion in a longitudinal direction,” “a detection apparatus for electrode plate, wherein the electrode plate comprises a coated portion and an uncoated portion located on at least one side of the coated portion in a longitudinal direction,” “a detection device for electrode plate, wherein the detection device comprises a memory and a processor in communication connection with the memory, wherein the memory stores machine-readable instructions, and when the machine-readable instructions are executed by the processor,” and “a detection device for electrode plate, wherein the detection device comprises a memory and a processor in communication connection with the memory, wherein the memory stores machine-readable instructions, and when the machine-readable instructions are executed by the processor” are preamble statements reciting purpose or intended use (See MPEP 2111.02)(II)). Further, the additional element of “obtaining dimensional parameters D1 ... DN at different detection positions P1 ... PN of the uncoated portion in a transverse direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction” is insignificant (gathering data) extra-solution activity to perform abstract idea that is mathematical concepts and/or mental processes (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 1 does not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts, for example, how and or with what compare the dimensional parameters D1 ... DN with a dimensional detection standard. This is just a processor running algorithm related to mental processes and mathematical calculations. Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 11 and 22-24. Therefore, the independent claims 1, 11, and 22-24 are ineligible.
Regarding claims 2-10 and 12-21,
All features recited in these claims are abstract ideas, as all features found in these claims are directed towards metal processes and/or mathematical calculations steps. The explanation for the rejection of Claims 2-10 and 12-21therefore are incorporated herein and applied to Claims 1 and 11. These claims therefore stand rejected for similar reasons as explained in above Claims 1 and 11.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11-17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN 108548491 A, hereinafter referred to as “Wang,” cited in IDS dated February 29, 2024).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a detection method for electrode plate, wherein the electrode plate comprises a coated portion and an uncoated portion (Fig. 2, lug layer) located on at least one side of the coated portion in a longitudinal direction (Fig. 2, area except lug layer); and the detection method (Fig. 1) comprises:
step S1000: obtaining dimensional parameters D1 ... DN at different detection positions P1 ... PN (Fig. 2 and page 3, line 30: pole Ear position size includes lug layer width dimensions a, lug protruded length size b, shoulder breadth size c. When detection, detecting system is measured a, b, c) of the uncoated portion (Fig. 2, lug layer) in a transverse direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (page 5, lines 1-2: A kind of equipment of test lamination type electric core pole piece cladding situation, further includes assembly line, the assembly line is by transverse flow Waterline and longitudinal assembly line right-angled intersection form, and all devices are all mounted on assembly line), and
step S2000: comparing the dimensional parameters D1 ... DN with a dimensional detection standard S to determine (page 3, lines 30-31: pole Ear position size includes lug layer width dimensions a, lug protruded length size b, shoulder breadth size c. When detection, detecting system is measured a, b, c and corresponding standard value compares) whether the uncoated portion (Fig. 2, lug layer) is folded, wherein N is a positive integer, and N is greater than or equal to 2 (page 3, lines 30-3: see above).
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches The detection method according to claim 1, wherein the dimensional parameters (Fig. 2 and page 3, line 30: pole Ear position size includes lug layer width dimensions a, lug protruded length size b, shoulder breadth size c. When detection, detecting system is measured a, b, c) are dimensional parameters of the uncoated portion (Fig. 2, lug layer) in the longitudinal direction (page 5, lines 1-2: a kind of equipment of test lamination type electric core pole piece cladding situation, further includes assembly line, the assembly line is by transverse flow Waterline and longitudinal assembly line right-angled intersection form, and all devices are all mounted on assembly line).
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches The detection method according to claim 2, wherein step S1000 comprises:
step S1100: driving the electrode plate (Fig. 1, 4) to move along the transverse direction (page 5, lines 1-2: a kind of equipment of test lamination type electric core pole piece cladding situation, further includes assembly line, the assembly line is by transverse flow Waterline and longitudinal assembly line right-angled intersection form, and all devices are all mounted on assembly line); and
step S1200: obtaining, during movement of the electrode plate along the transverse direction (Fig. 1, assembly line 5; page 5, lines 1-2: a kind of equipment of test lamination type electric core pole piece cladding situation, further includes assembly line, the assembly line is by transverse flow Waterline and longitudinal assembly line right-angled intersection form, and all devices are all mounted on assembly line), the dimensional parameters D1 ... DN (Fig. 2 and page 3, line 30: pole Ear position size includes lug layer width dimensions a, lug protruded length size b, shoulder breadth size c. When detection, detecting system is measured a, b, c) at the different detection positions P1 ... PN (page 3, lines 24-25: holder 1 can left and right horizontal it is mobile and can rotate and positioned convenient for imaging device) of the uncoated portion (Fig. 2, lug layer) of the electrode plate (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches The detection method according to claim 1, wherein before step S2000, the detection method further comprises: step S3000: obtaining a dimensional detection standard S (page 3, line 30: pole Ear position size includes lug layer width dimensions a, lug protruded length size b, shoulder breadth size c. When detection, detecting system is measured a, b, c and corresponding standard value compares) of the uncoated portion (Fig. 2, lug layer) of the electrode plate (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches The detection method according to claim 4, wherein step S3000 comprises: step S3100: obtaining dimensional detection standards S1 ... SN (page 3, lines 30-31: pole Ear position size includes lug layer width dimensions a, lug protruded length size b, shoulder breadth size c. When detection, detecting system is measured A, b, c and corresponding standard value compares, note that the above feature of “detecting system is measured A, b, c and corresponding standard value” reads on “dimensional detection standards S1 ... SN”) at the different detection positions P1 ... PN (page 3, lines 24-25: holder 1 can left and right horizontal it is mobile and can rotate and positioned convenient for imaging device) of the uncoated portion (Fig. 2, lug layer) of the electrode plate (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches The detection method according to claim 5, wherein step S3100 comprises: step S3110: determining absolute positions PA1 ... PAN of each of the different detection positions P1 ... PN; (page 3, lines 24-25: holder 1 can left and right horizontal it is mobile and can rotate and positioned convenient for imaging device) and
step S3120: obtaining, based on the determined absolute positions PA1 ... PAN (page 3, lines 24-25: holder 1 can left and right horizontal it is mobile and can rotate and positioned convenient for imaging device), the dimensional detection standards S1 ... SN (page 3, lines 30-31: pole Ear position size includes lug layer width dimensions a, lug protruded length size b, shoulder breadth size c. When detection, detecting system is measured A, b, c and corresponding standard value compares, note that the above feature of “detecting system is measured A, b, c and corresponding standard value” reads on “dimensional detection standards S1 ... SN) at the different detection positions P1 ... PN (page 3, lines 24-25: holder 1 can left and right horizontal it is mobile and can rotate and positioned convenient for imaging device ) of the uncoated portion (Fig. 2, lug layer) of the electrode plate (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches The detection method according to claim 6, wherein the electrode plate comprises at least one electrode plate having a preset mark (page 3, lines 1-2: S1: Inductor senses that battery core circulates to check bit, and imaging device is imaged battery core, and extremely by image transmitting On-line measuring device; page 3, lines 25-26: when inductor 4 senses pallet, laterally Pallet pin 6 and longitudinal pallet pin 7 are closed, and pallet is parked in check bit, and on-line measuring device 3 is detected battery core); and
step S3110 comprises: step S3111: detecting the at least one electrode plate (Fig. 1, 4 and page 3, lines 1-2: pallet) having the preset mark (page 3, lines 1-2: S1: Inductor senses that battery core circulates to check bit, and imaging device is imaged battery core, and extremely by image transmitting On-line measuring device; page 3, lines 25-26: see above); and
step S3112: determining, based on positions of the different detection positions P1 ... PN (page 3, lines 24-25: holder 1 can left and right horizontal it is mobile and can rotate and positioned convenient for imaging device) relative to the preset mark (page 3, lines 1-2: S1: Inductor senses that battery core circulates to check bit, and imaging device is imaged battery core, and extremely by image transmitting On-line measuring device: page 3, lines 25-26: see above), the absolute positions PA1 ... PAN of each of the different detection positions P1 ... PN (page 3, lines 24-25: holder 1 can left and right horizontal it is mobile and can rotate and positioned convenient for imaging device).
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches The detection method according to claim 1, The detection method according to claim 1, wherein step S2000 (see claim 1 above) comprises:
step S2200: determining that the uncoated portion is folded (page 3, line 30: pole Ear position size includes lug layer width dimensions a, lug protruded length size b, shoulder breadth size c. When detection, detecting system is measured A, b, c and corresponding standard value compares) in response to a quantity being greater than a preset threshold (page 3, lines 33-35: when lug interlayer there are one or more pieces pole pieces to be dislocated, there is offset, then lug layer width dimensions a ＞ standard values: When lug interlayer has one or more pieces pole pieces to offset up, then lug protruded length size b ＞standard values),
wherein the quantity is a quantity of dimensional parameters which are less than the dimensional detection standard S in the dimensional parameters D1 ... DN (page 3, lines 36-37: Work as pole Ear layer pole piece is integrally offset downward, then lug protruded length size b ＜ standard values；Diaphragm coats not with negative plate width direction It is good, then shoulder breadth c ＜ standard value), or determining that the uncoated portion is unfolded in response to a quantity being not greater than a preset threshold (page 3, line 30: see above; page 3, lines 36-37: see above), wherein the quantity is a quantity of dimensional parameters which are less than the dimensional detection standard S in the dimensional parameters D1 ... DN (page 3, line 30: see above; page 3, lines 36-37: see above).
Regarding claim 11, it is an apparatus type claim and has similar limitation as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, it is a dependent on claim 11 and has similar limitations as of claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 13, it is a dependent on claim 12 and has similar limitations as of claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 14, it is a dependent on claim 11 and has similar limitations as of claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 15, it is a dependent on claim 14 and has similar limitations as of claim 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 16, it is a dependent on claim 15 and has similar limitations as of claim 6 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 17, it is a dependent on claim 16 and has similar limitations as of claim 7 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 19, it is a dependent on claim 11 and has similar limitations as of claim 9 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 21, it is a dependent on claim 11. The additional elements of the parameter obtaining unit comprising at least one of a laser detector, an ultrasonic detector, and an image obtaining and processing apparatus (Fig, 1, imaging device 2), taught by Wang.
Regarding claim 22, it is a system type claim and has similar limitation as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 1 above. The additional elements of a stacking apparatus configured to stack electrode plates (page 3, line 33: when positive/negative plate is stacked together, all anode pole piece lugs can be completely overlapped), taught by Wang.
Regarding claim 23, it is a device type claim and has similar limitation as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 1 above. The additional elements of the detection device comprises a memory and a processor in communication connection with the memory, wherein the memory stores machine-readable instructions, and when the machine-readable instructions are executed by the processor (Fig. 1. on-line measuring device 3), taught by Wang.
Regarding claim 24, it is a computer-readable storage medium type claim and has similar limitation as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 1 above. The additional elements of the computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program, and when the computer program is executed by a processor (Fig. 1. on-line measuring device 3), taught by Wang.
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 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.
Claims 8, 10, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 108548491 A, hereinafter referred to as “Wang,” cited in IDS dated February 29, 2024).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches The detection method according to claim 1, The detection method according to claim 1, wherein step S2000 (see claim 1 above) comprises:
step S2100: determining that the uncoated portion (Fig. 2, lug layer) is folded in response to M consecutive (page 3, lines 20-23: the inductor 4 is mounted on check bit, and the transverse direction pallet pin 6 is mounted on check bit to lower one of work Between sequence) dimensional parameters in the dimensional parameters D1 ... DN being less than the dimensional detection standard S (page 3, lines 35-36: Work as pole Ear layer pole piece is integrally offset downward, then lug protruded length size b ＜ standard values; Diaphragm coats not with negative plate width direction It is good, then shoulder breadth c ＜ standard values), wherein M is a positive integer, and M is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to N (page 3, lines 20-23: the inductor 4 is mounted on check bit, and the transverse direction pallet pin 6 is mounted on check bit to lower one of work Between sequence).
Wang does not explicitly teach determining that the uncoated portion is folded in response to M consecutive dimensional parameters in the dimensional parameters D1 ... DN being less than the dimensional detection standard S, wherein M is a positive integer, and M is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to N.
However, Wang teaches detecting system is measured a, b, c and corresponding standard value compares (see page 3, lines 30-31) and sequence (see page 3, lines 20-23). Therefore, the claimed feature of “the above described claimed feature would be an obvious variation of such method because a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Wang’s detecting system in order to determine the folding of uncoated portion (see MPEP 2143: “Obvious To Try”-choosing from a finite number of predictable solution).
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches The detection method according to claim 9, wherein the dimensional detection standard S (page 3, line 30: pole Ear position size includes lug layer width dimensions a, lug protruded length size b, shoulder breadth size c. When detection, detecting system is measured A, b, c and corresponding standard value compares) is M1/M2 of a nominal dimension (page 3, lines 20-23: the inductor 4 is mounted on check bit, and the transverse direction pallet pin 6 is mounted on check bit to lower one of work Between sequence) of the uncoated portion (Fig. 2, lug layer ) in the longitudinal direction (page 5, lines 1-2: a kind of equipment of test lamination type electric core pole piece cladding situation, further includes assembly line, the assembly line is by transverse flow Waterline and longitudinal assembly line right-angled intersection form, and all devices are all mounted on assembly line), M1 and M2 are positive integers, and M2 is not less than M1 (page 3, lines 20-23: the inductor 4 is mounted on check bit, and the transverse direction pallet pin 6 is mounted on check bit to lower one of work Between sequence); and
the preset threshold is NM1/M2. (page 3, lines 20-23: the inductor 4 is mounted on check bit, and the transverse direction pallet pin 6 is mounted on check bit to lower one of work Between sequence).
Wang does not specifically teach that the dimensional detection standard S is M1/M2 of a nominal dimension of the uncoated portion in the longitudinal direction, M1 and M2 are positive integers, and M2 is not less than M1; and the preset threshold is NM1/M2.
However, Wang teaches the dimensional detection standard S (see page 3, line 30), sequence (see page 3, lines 20-23), and longitudinal direction (see page 5, lines 1-2), the above-described claimed feature would be an obvious variation of such method. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Wang’s sequence (i.e. M) in order to determine M1 and M2 in the longitudinal direction, and allow M1 and M2 to be positive integers and allow M2 to be not less than M1 and the preset threshold is NM1/M2 (see MPEP 2143: “Obvious To Try”-choosing from a finite number of predictable solution).
Regarding claim 18, it is a dependent on claim 11 and has similar limitations as of claim 8 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 20, it is a dependent on claim 19 and has similar limitations as of claim 10 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 10 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, LEE RODAK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights