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 03/22/2024 and 09/30/2024 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.
Claims 1-20 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 method, comprising:
using previously stored change-in-voltage-over-change-in-time characteristics of a plurality of rechargeable batteries to determine one of a plurality of types of rechargeable batteries that has been mounted to an automotive telematics system;
automatically selecting charging parameters and at least one state-of-health parameter for the rechargeable battery mounted to the automotive telematics system based on the determination of the type of rechargeable battery mounted to the automotive telematics system.
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 mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, the limitation of “using previously stored change-in-voltage-over-change-in-time characteristics of a plurality of rechargeable batteries to determine one of a plurality of types of rechargeable batteries that has been mounted to an automotive telematics system (see paras. [0058]-[0059], [0061]) and “automatically selecting charging parameters and at least one state-of-health parameter for the rechargeable battery mounted to the automotive telematics system based on the determination of the type of rechargeable battery mounted to the automotive telematics system (see paras. [0029], [0035])” are mental processes (evaluation/judgement). Batteries mounted to an automotive telematics system is merely describing what is being determined. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers human mind, then it falls within “Mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 10.
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: none.
In Claim 10: an apparatus (preamble); a rechargeable battery; a battery-charger coupled to the rechargeable battery; a microcontroller coupled to the rechargeable battery.
The additional elements such as the apparatus, a rechargeable battery, a battery-charger coupled to the rechargeable battery, and microcontroller are recited at a high-level of generality without descriptions of its specific structure/features to perform the claimed features for producing the mathematical or mental processes addressed above (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (Clarke (WO2017197383 A1), Small et al. (US 2002/0070709 A1). For example, Clarke and Small teach a battery-charger coupled to the rechargeable battery and a microcontroller coupled to the rechargeable battery (see Fig. 1a and paras. [0085], [0088]-[0090] of Clarke; para. [0081]-[0083] of Small). Therefore, independent claims 1 and 10 are not patent eligible.
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 to determine one of a plurality of types of rechargeable batteries and select charging parameters and at least one state-of-health
Parameter. Therefore, the claims have no significance more beyond the abstract idea. Further, an abstract idea itself is just that, abstract, and whether such feature is or is not significant does not preclude it from being considered abstract. An abstract idea by itself, whether it or not it has a benefit, does not reasonably overcome a 101 rejection because it is still an abstract idea. Therefore, the above advantages relate to abstract idea limitations which are not considered. The Improvements in the abstract idea are not qualified as improvements indicating a practical application. The pending claims are not patent eligible since a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(a).I) and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a).II and MPEP 2106.05(a).II: Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48)). This is just a processor (or microcontroller) running mental processes. Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 10. Therefore, the independent claims 1 and 10 are ineligible.
Regarding claims 2-9 and 11-20,
All features recited in these claims are abstract ideas, as all features found in these claims are directed towards mental processes steps and functional recitation for the mental processes (i.e., determining step). The explanation for the rejection of Claims 2-9 and 11-20 therefore are incorporated herein and applied to Claims 1 and 10. These claims therefore stand rejected for similar reasons as explained in above Claims 1 and 10.
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, 9-11, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clarke et al. (WO 2017197383 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Clarke”) (cited in IDS dated September 30, 2024).
Regarding claim 1, Clarke discloses a method, comprising:
using previously stored (para. [0088]: storing and retrieving information) change-in-voltage-over-change-in-time characteristics of a plurality of rechargeable batteries to determine one of a plurality of types of rechargeable batteries (para. [0085]: other rechargeable batteries, such as lithium batteries; para. [0098]: the battery charger 100 may be further configured to determine, automatically, different battery chemistry (e.g. , AGM, gel, lithium ion, etc.) and the battery' s 104 nominal voltage. The charging characteristics of a battery charger may be configured to match the battery chemistry of the battery 104 to be charged, note that the above feature of “rechargeable batteries” in para. [0085] “different battery chemistry (e.g. , AGM, gel, lithium ion, etc.)” in para. [0098], and “storing and retrieving information” in para. [0088] reads on “change-in-voltage-over-change-in-time characteristics of a plurality of rechargeable batteries to determine one of a plurality of types of rechargeable batteries”) that has been mounted to an automotive telematics system (para. [0108]: the battery charger 100 may wirelessly communicate with a wireless transceiver 148; para. [0159]: The load applied to the battery 104 is a percentage to the current required to start a vehicle; [0167]-[0179]: vehicle, note that the above feature of “wireless transceiver” and “a vehicle” reads on “an automotive telematics system”);
automatically selecting charging parameters (para. [0085]: the battery charger 100 may be configured to determine, automatically, the battery type/chemistry - AGM, gel, lithium ion, etc) and at least one state-of-health parameter (para. [0159]: the battery SoH is determined to be below 60%) for the rechargeable battery (para. [0085]: other rechargeable batteries, such as lithium batteries; para. [0098]: the battery charger 100 may be further configured to determine, automatically, different battery chemistry (e.g. , AGM, gel, lithium ion, etc) mounted to the automotive telematics system (paras. [0108], [0159], [0167], [0179]: see above) based on the determination of the type of rechargeable battery (para. [0085]: other rechargeable batteries, such as lithium batteries; para. [0098]: the battery charger 100 may be further configured to determine, automatically, different battery chemistry (e.g. , AGM, gel, lithium ion, etc.) mounted to
the automotive telematics system (paras. [0108], [0159], [0167], [0179]: see above).
Regarding claim 2, Clarke discloses all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Clarke discloses fully charging the rechargeable battery (para. [0085]: other rechargeable batteries, such as lithium batteries) mounted to the automotive telematics system (paras. [0108], [0159], [0167], [0179]: see claim 1 above) is not needed in order to determine the type of the rechargeable battery (para. [0085]: “starting battery, a storage battery, a marine battery (e.g. , a deep cycle battery, which is designed to be regularly deeply discharged using most of its capacity), a storage battery” reads on “alternative of rechargeable battery, i.e., not needed in order to determine the type of the rechargeable battery”).
Regarding claim 4, Clarke discloses all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Clarke discloses that the plurality of types of rechargeable batteries comprises batteries from a respective plurality of different rechargeablepara. [0098]: determine, automatically, different battery chemistry (e.g. , AGM, gel, lithium ion, etc).
Regarding claim 9, Clarke discloses all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Clarke discloses that the automatically selected charging parameters and the at least one state-of-health parameter (para. [0159]: If that value is below the nominal required voltage, the battery SoH is determined to be below 60% and the battery 104 should be replaced. Based on this comparison, the processor 128 can identify the battery type) include at least two of: maximum charge voltage, minimum discharge cut-off voltage, minimum charge temperature , maximum charge temperature, minimum discharge temperature, maximum discharge temperature, maximum charge current, and maximum internal resistance at 25 degrees Celsius (para. [0119]: the temperature of the battery 104 may also be monitored (e.g. , directly via a sensor 112, such as a thermometer, or indirectly as a function of the current supplied to the battery and measured battery parameters) to ensure that it does not exceed a predetermined temperature (e.g. , 125° F for a wet battery, 100° F for an AGM or GEL, etc., note that the above feature of “predetermined temperature” reads on maximum charge temperature; paras. [0115], about half the maximum charging current for a given battery type; para. [0119]: a maximum charging current while the voltage increases).
Regarding claim 10, it is an apparatus type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 1 above. The additional limitations of a rechargeable battery (para. [0085]; rechargeable batteries); a battery-charger coupled to the rechargeable battery (para. [0085]: another rechargeable battery, charger 100 may be configured to determine, automatically, the battery type/chemistry - AGM, gel, lithium ion, etc); a microcontroller coupled to the rechargeable battery (paras. [0088]-[0090]), taught by Clarke.
Regarding claim 11, it is dependent on claim 10 and has similar limitations as of claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 13, it is dependent on claim 10 and has similar limitations as of claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 19, it is dependent on claim 10 and has similar limitations as of claim 9 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 9 above.
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.
Claims 5-8 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarke.
Regarding claim 5, Clarke teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Clarke teaches that the determination of the type of the rechargeable battery (para. [0085]: rechargeable battery) and rechargeable batteries (para. [0085]: rechargeable lithium ion battery, or lead-acid battery; para. [0098]: different battery chemistry (e.g. , AGM, gel, lithium ion, etc), measured voltage-versus-time values (para. [0157]: battery type can be determined by applying a constant current charge and measuring the rate of change of voltage (dv/dt) as the battery charges from, for example, 70% to 80% SoC), and lookup table (Fig. 4 and para. [0157]: The processor 128 can then compare the voltage response to predetermined voltage responses stored in either the data storage 122 or the read only memory 118 at step 406 using, for example, a lookup table. The lookup table may include a plurality of known battery types (e.g. , lead-acid, lithium, etc.) and associated voltage response characteristics or ranges. Battery type can be determined by applying a constant current charge and measuring the rate of change of voltage (dv/dt) as the battery charges from, for example, 70% to 80% SoC).
Clarke does not specifically teach determining a best fit between measured voltage-versus-time values within a common voltage-detection window that has a bottom-voltage limit and a top-voltage limit that are both the same for the plurality of types of rechargeable batteries.
However, Clarke teaches comparing the voltage response to predetermined voltage responses stored in either the data storage 122 or the read only memory 118 at step 406 using, for example, a lookup table. The lookup table may include a plurality of known battery types (e.g. , lead-acid, lithium, etc.) and associated voltage response characteristics or ranges. Battery type can be determined by applying a constant current charge and measuring the rate of change of voltage (dv/dt) as the battery charges from, for example, 70% to 80% SoC (see para. [0157]). Therefore, 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 Clarke’s lookup table in order to determine a best fit a best fit between measured voltage-versus-time values (see MPEP 2144.05. II: “Routine Optimization”).
Regarding claim 6, Clarke teaches all the limitation of claim 5, in addition, Clarke teaches the types of the rechargeable batteries (para. [0085]: rechargeable lithium ion battery, or lead-acid battery; para. [0098]: different battery chemistry (e.g. , AGM, gel, lithium ion, etc)), measured voltage-versus-time values (para. [0157]: battery type can be determined by applying a constant current charge and measuring the rate of change of voltage (dv/dt) as the battery charges from, for example, 70% to 80% SoC), and lookup table (Fig. 4 and para. [0157]: The processor 128 can then compare the voltage response to predetermined voltage responses stored in either the data storage 122 or the read only memory 118 at step 406 using, for example, a lookup table. The lookup table may include a plurality of known battery types (e.g. , lead-acid, lithium, etc.) and associated voltage response characteristics or ranges. Battery type can be determined by applying a constant current charge and measuring the rate of change of voltage (dv/dt) as the battery charges from, for example, 70% to 80% SoC).
Clarke does not specifically teaches that the bottom-voltage limit and the top-voltage limit of the common voltage-detection window are selected such that a plurality of voltage-versus-time characteristics of the corresponding types of rechargeable batteries differ as much as possible with respect to one another.
However, Clarke teaches comparing the voltage response to predetermined voltage responses stored in either the data storage 122 or the read only memory 118 at step 406 using, for example, a lookup table. The lookup table may include a plurality of known battery types (e.g. , lead-acid, lithium, etc.) (see para. [0157]) and associated voltage response characteristics or ranges. Battery type can be determined by applying a constant current charge and measuring the rate of change of voltage (dv/dt) as the battery charges from, for example, 70% to 80% SoC (see para. [0157] ). Therefore, the above 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 Clarke’s lookup table in order to allow the bottom-voltage limit and the top-voltage limit of the common voltage-detection window to be selected such that a plurality of voltage-versus-time characteristics of the corresponding types of rechargeable batteries differ as much as possible with respect to one another (see MPEP 2144.05. II: “Routine Optimization” and MPEP 2143: “Obvious To Try”-choosing from a finite number of predictable solution).
Regarding claim 7, Clarke teaches all the limitation of claim 6, in addition, Clarke teaches the types of the rechargeable batteries (para. [0085]: rechargeable lithium ion battery, or lead-acid battery; para. [0098]: different battery chemistry (e.g. , AGM, gel, lithium ion, etc), measured voltage-versus-time values (para. [0157]: battery type can be determined by applying a constant current charge and measuring the rate of change of voltage (dv/dt) as the battery charges from, for example, 70% to 80% SoC), and curve (Fig. 10a and para. [0158]: the charge curve at Figure 10a illustrates a graph 1000a of a dv/dt curve 1002a vis-a-vis a battery voltage curve 1004a for a 22AH AGM battery being charged with a 2.0 A constant current charge), and lookup table (Fig. 4 and para. [0157]: The processor 128 can then compare the voltage response to predetermined voltage responses stored in either the data storage 122 or the read only memory 118 at step 406 using, for example, a lookup table. The lookup table may include a plurality of known battery types (e.g. , lead-acid, lithium, etc.) and associated voltage response characteristics or ranges. Battery type can be determined by applying a constant current charge and measuring the rate of change of voltage (dv/dt) as the battery charges from, for example, 70% to 80% SoC).
Clarke does not specifically teach that each of the plurality of voltage-versus-
time characteristics of the corresponding types of rechargeable batteries are represented with a respective one of a plurality of pairs of a respective upper-limit-point curve and a respective lower-limit-point curve.
However, Clarke teaches the charge curve at Figure 10a illustrates a graph 1000a of a dv/dt curve 1002a vis-a-vis a battery voltage curve 1004a for a 22AH AGM battery being charged with a 2.0 A constant current charge, and lookup table (see Fig. 4 and para. [0157]). Therefore, the above claimed feature would be an obvious variation of Clarke’s method because a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Clarke’s curves related to voltage versus time characteristics and lookup table in order to allow each of the plurality of voltage-versus-time characteristics of the corresponding types of rechargeable batteries to be represented with a respective one of a plurality of pairs of a respective upper-limit-point curve and a respective lower-limit-point curve (see MPEP 2144.05. II: “Routine Optimization” or MPEP 2143: “Obvious To Try”-choosing from a finite number of predictable solution).
Regarding claim 8, Clarke teaches all the limitation of claim 7, in addition, Clarke teaches the types of the rechargeable batteries (para. [0085]: rechargeable lithium ion battery, or lead-acid battery; para. [0098]: different battery chemistry (e.g. , AGM, gel, lithium ion, etc), measured voltage-versus-time values (para. [0157]: battery type can be determined by applying a constant current charge and measuring the rate of change of voltage (dv/dt) as the battery charges from, for example, 70% to 80% SoC), curve (Fig. 10a and para. [0158]: the charge curve at Figure 10a illustrates a graph 1000a of a dv/dt curve 1002a vis-a-vis a battery voltage curve 1004a for a 22AH AGM battery being charged with a 2.0 A constant current charge), and lookup table (Fig. 4 and para. [0157]: The processor 128 can then compare the voltage response to predetermined voltage responses stored in either the data storage 122 or the read only memory 118 at step 406 using, for example, a lookup table. The lookup table may include a plurality of known battery types (e.g. , lead-acid, lithium, etc.) and associated voltage response characteristics or ranges. Battery type can be determined by applying a constant current charge and measuring the rate of change of voltage (dv/dt) as the battery charges from, for example, 70% to 80% SoC).
Clake does not specifically teach that determining the best fit between measured voltage-versus-time values within the common voltage-detection window further comprises: comparing a measured voltage of the rechargeable battery mounted to the automotive telematics system with the plurality of pairs of the respective upper-limit-point curve and the respective lower-limit-point curve within the common voltage-detection window for each of the respective types of rechargeable batteries.
However, Clarke teaches the automotive telematics system (see para. [0108]. [0159]), the types of rechargeable batteries(see paras. [0085], [0098]), the lookup table including a plurality of known battery types (see Fig. 4. and para. [0157]), battery type determined by applying a constant current charge and measuring the rate of change of voltage (dv/dt) (see para. [0157]), and charge curve (see Fig. 10a and para. [0158]). Therefore, above described claimed feature would be obvious variation of such method because a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Clarke’s rechargeable battery, lookup table, and curves related to voltage versus time characteristics in order to determine the best fit between measured voltage-versus-time values within the common voltage-detection window further and compare a measured voltage of the rechargeable battery mounted to the automotive telematics system with the plurality of pairs of the respective upper-limit-point curve and the respective lower-limit-point curve within the common voltage-detection window for each of the respective types of rechargeable batteries (see MPEP 2144.05. II: “Routine Optimization” and MPEP 2143: “Obvious To Try”-choosing from a finite number of predictable solution).
Regarding claim 14, it is dependent on claim 10 and has similar limitations as of claim 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 15, it is dependent on claim 14 and has similar limitations as of claim 6 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 16, it is dependent on claim 15 and has similar limitations as of claim 7 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 17, it is dependent on claim 16 and has similar limitations as of claim 8 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 18, it is dependent on claim 10 and has similar limitations as of claim 8 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 8 above.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarke in view of Haraguchi et al. ( US 2006/0267550 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Haraguchi”).
Regarding claim 3, Clarke teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Clarke teaches the plurality of types of rechargeable batteries (para. [0098]) comprises batteries from a respective plurality of rechargeable-battery (para. [0085]: another rechargeable battery, charger 100 may be configured to determine, automatically, the battery type/chemistry - AGM, gel, lithium ion, etc).
Clarke does not specifically teach a respective plurality of rechargeable-battery supplier.
However, Haraguchi teaches a respective plurality of rechargeable-battery supplier (para. [0028]: information such as the manufacturer of the battery and battery pack; para. [0030]: when a problem occurs in the rechargeable battery 1 or a battery pack that uses the rechargeable battery 1, information during battery use that has been recorded onto each rechargeable battery 1 will be the information important to analyze the cause of the problem, note that since Haraguchi teaches information such as the manufacturer (see paras. [0028] and [0030]), a respective plurality of rechargeable-battery supplier would be an inherent functional property or an obvious variation of such method to provide a manufacturing control method for batteries that records information for manufacturing rechargeable batteries and/or during use of rechargeable batteries onto individual rechargeable batteries and then use this recorded information for the selection of rechargeable batteries and the analysis of usage histories (Haraguchi, para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 12, it is dependent on claim 10 and has similar limitations as of claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 3 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee (US 2023/0211702 A1) teaches that an electric vehicle may be equipped with a swappable battery, and a power source management method. The electric vehicle includes a motor, an inverter configured to exchange three-phase power with the motor, a main battery unit which may be electrically connected to the inverter, includes a first battery and a first BMS for controlling the first battery.
IIDA et al. (US 2022/0258646 A1) teaches that a battery information management device according to the present disclosure includes a memory, and a hardware processor coupled to the memory. The hardware processor being configured to: when a degree of deterioration of a battery is lower than a reference, collect battery information on the battery with a first collection period; when the degree of deterioration of the battery is equal to or higher than the reference, collect the battery information with a second collection period shorter than the first collection period; and transmit the collected battery information to an external device.
Verheijen et al. (US 2022/0026492 A1) teaches that Vehicle battery voltage data is received from a telematics control unit (TCU) of a vehicle dining multiple driving cycles, and analysed to determine a state of health (SOH) and state of charge (SOC) of the battery.
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