Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been carefully and fully considered. With respect to applicant’s argument of the remarks regarding the 101 rejection which recites:
“the components of the particular machine recited in Applicant’s claims are simply not a “general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception.” See Office Action at 3; MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, it is respectfully submitted this factor should weigh in favor of eligibility. As discussed below, the machine is integral to the alleged abstract idea and is not mere extra-solution activity or a field-of-use… The performance of the method of claim 8 is clearly tied to the particular machine. Claim 8 recites the same components a notching device, and electrode roll, an unwinder and a rewinder… These sensed values provide identification information for the electrode. As previously discussed, such identification represents an improvement over the prior art, which could not provide tracing for certain electrodes (e.g., positive electrodes. Importantly, this improvement is described in Applicant’s disclosure, and it is embodied in the claims themselves.
Examiner notes that for Particular Machine recited MPEP 2106.05(b): It is noted that while the application of a judicial exception by or with a particular machine is an important clue, it is not a stand-alone test for eligibility. Id. All claims must be evaluated for eligibility using the two-part test from Alice/Mayo…if a claim fails the Alice/Mayo test (i.e., is directed to an exception at Step 2A and does not amount to significantly more than the exception in Step 2B), then the claim is ineligible even if it passes the M-or-T test. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1104 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("[I]n Mayo, the Supreme Court emphasized that satisfying the machine-or-transformation test, by itself, is not sufficient to render a claim patent-eligible, as not all transformations or machine implementations infuse an otherwise ineligible claim with an 'inventive concept.'"). It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine.
Examiner provides no evidence …with respect to the vision inspection sensor, the specification states that it “is capable of identifying the shape and size of an object to be inspected, characters, a patter, etc. using an industrial camera similar to when viewed with human eyes to inspect physical defects, missing components, or quality of a product see Par. [0073]. It is respectfully submitted that simply analogizing an industrial camera to human eyes is not an admission that the function of the industrial camera can be performed by a human or in the mind of a human.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification supports mental abstract assertion which can be interpreted as evidence as it describes this as [0731] “similar to when viewed with human eyes to inspect physical defect, missing components, or quality of a product”, “manage the identification information and the inspection information of the at least one electrode by matching the identification information and the inspection information” – Specification supports this as it describes this as [00761] “by matching the virtual identification information and the inspection information”, “determining a pitch of the at least one electrode in the roll-to-roll state” – Specification supports this as it describes this as [0048] “may identify the length, i.e., a pitch, of each of the tabs of the positive electrode”, and “generate count information based on the pitch of the at least one electrode in the roll-to-roll state” – Specification supports this as it describes this as [0048] “generate count information of the tabs of the positive electrode on the basis of the information about the length of each of the tabs of the positive electrode received from the tab sensor”. MPEP 2106(B)(2) If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1139, 120 USPQ2d at 1474 (holding that claims to the mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper".
Examiner notes regarding claim 1 simply states that the notching device forms a notched electrode however the notching is not in response to any of the listed actions in the claim indicated as mental abstract ideas. The unconventional technical solution must be expressed in the claim, and therefore is not an unconventional technical solution as it not linked to the managing identification information making any technical solution unclear in the claim language. MPEP 2106.05(a) During examination, the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. Generally, examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgement on the merits of the asserted improvement. If the examiner concludes the disclosed invention does not improve technology, the burden shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology. Any such evidence submitted under 37 CFR 1.132 must establish what the specification would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art and cannot be used to supplement the specification. See, e.g. MPEP § 716.09 on 37 CFR 1.132 practice with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). For example, in response to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, an applicant could submit a declaration under § 1.132 providing testimony on how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the disclosed invention as improving technology and the underlying factual basis for that conclusion.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “inspection device configured to inspect” in claims 1, and 5. The specification does provide sufficient support for “inspection device” [00731] the inspection device 120 may include, for example, a vision inspection sensor. Here, the vision inspection sensor is capable of identifying the shape and size of an object to be inspected. For interpretation purposes the inspection device is interpreted as a sensor.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “inspect the at least one electrode to generate inspection information”- Specification supports this as it describes this as [0731] “similar to when viewed with human eyes to inspect physical defect, missing components, or quality of a product”, “manage the identification information and the inspection information of the at least one electrode by matching the identification information and the inspection information” – Specification supports this as it describes this as [00761] “by matching the virtual identification information and the inspection information”, “determining a pitch of the at least one notched electrode in the roll-to-roll state” – Specification supports this as it describes this as [0048] “may identify the length, i.e., a pitch, of each of the tabs of the positive electrode”, and “generate count information based on the pitch of the at least one electrode in the roll-to-roll state” – Specification supports this as it describes this as [0048] “generate count information of the tabs of the positive electrode on the basis of the information about the length of each of the tabs of the positive electrode received from the tab sensor”.
The limitations of “generate identification information for of each of the at least one electrode on the basis of the specification information and the coordinates of the position”, “inspect the at least one electrode to generate inspection information”, “manage the identification information and the inspection information of the at least one electrode by matching the identification information and the inspection information”, “determining a pitch of the at least one notched electrode in the roll-to-roll state”, and “generate count information based on the pitch of the at least one notched electrode in the roll-to-roll state” are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example language, “inspect”, “matching”, and “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses that the user mentally could make a decision, observation, and comparison. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements- “receive specification information of at least an notched electrode in the electrode roll from a first sensor, receive coordinates of a position of the at least one electrode in a roll-to-roll state from a second sensor” which are simply insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering and transmission by acquiring data and information, the claim also recites element- : “a notching device configured to notch at least one electrode in a roll-to-roll state in an electrode roll extending between an unwinder and a rewinder, thereby forming at least one notched electrode in the roll-to-roll state in the electrode roll” which is insignificant extra solution activity as the limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim as described MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim recites elements- : “a monitoring system comprising: …a programmable logic controller (PLC) configured to”, “generate identification information of each of the at least one notched electrode on the basis of the specification information and the coordinates of the position” , “an inspection device configured to”, “a controller, communicatively coupled to the PLC and the inspection device”, and “wherein the first sensor is configured to” which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Accordingly these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of transmitting data which is simply insignificant extra solution activity of a controller receiving data from a sensor which is considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity- US20220137583 [0017] PLC devices to control valves and other piping infrastructure based on data received from pressure sensors, flow sensors…, and US20190103763 [0002] the process controllers, which are typically located within the plant environment, receive signals indicative of process measurements made by the field devices, [0042] field devices may be any types of devices, such as sensors) . The claim also recites elements- “a monitoring system comprising: …a programmable logic controller (PLC) configured to”, “generate identification information of each of the at least one notched electrode on the basis of the specification information and the coordinates of the position” , “an inspection device configured to”, “a controller, communicatively coupled to the PLC and the inspection device”, and “wherein the first sensor is configured to”, which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Generating identification information is considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity – US20160078906 [0017] the controller 2 generates a chip, [0020] generation information as the chip identification information, and US20160248481[0073] generate the identification information e.g. user-id. Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the mental abstract idea from claim 1 . Additionally the claim recites- “receives a count value of the number of the at least one notched electrode according to a length of a tab of the at least one notched electrode from the first sensor” which is simply insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering and transmitting which is considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity- US20220137583 [0017] PLC devices to control valves and other piping infrastructure based on data received from pressure sensors, flow sensors…, and US20190103763 [0002] the process controllers, which are typically located within the plant environment, receive signals indicative of process measurements made by the filed devices, [0042] field devices may be any types of devices, such as sensors).The claim additionally recites “wherein the PLC” which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim recites “ wherein the count value of the number of the at least one notched electrode comprises a binary coded decimal (BCD) code ” which falls under field of use and technological environment- see MPEP 2106.05(h) Parker v. Flook ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components did not make the concept patentable"). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the mental abstract idea from claim 1 . Additionally the claim recites- “receives roll map coordinates of the at least one electrode from an encoder” which is simply insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering and transmitting which is considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity- US20220137583 [0017] PLC devices to control valves and other piping infrastructure based on data received from pressure sensors, flow sensors…, and US20190103763 [0002] the process controllers, which are typically located within the plant environment, receive signals indicative of process measurements made by the filed devices, [0042] field devices may be any types of devices, such as sensors). The claim additionally recites “wherein the PLC” which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim recites “encoder installed in the rewinder” which falls under field of use and technological environment- see MPEP 2106.05(h) Parker v. Flook ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components did not make the concept patentable"). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the mental abstract idea from claim 1. The claim additionally recites “wherein the PLC”, and “generates an identifier (ID) of the at least one notched electrode” which are simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Generating identification information is considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity – US20160078906 [0017] the controller 2 generates a chip, [0020] generation information as the chip identification information, and US20160248481[0073] generate the identification information e.g. user-id. Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “adds the specification information to the inspection information of the at least one notched electrode” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. . For example language, “adds” in the context of this claim encompasses that the user mentally could combine the given information. Additionally the claim recites- “receives the specification information of the at least one notched electrode from the first sensor” which is simply insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering and transmitting which is considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity- US20220137583 [0017] PLC devices to control valves and other piping infrastructure based on data received from pressure sensors, flow sensors…, and US20190103763 [0002] the process controllers, which are typically located within the plant environment, receive signals indicative of process measurements made by the filed devices, [0042] field devices may be any types of devices, such as sensors). The claim additionally recites “wherein the inspection device” which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “manages the ID of the at least on electrode and the inspection information of the at least one notched electrode by matching the ID and the inspection information” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. . For example language, “matching” in the context of this claim encompasses that the user mentally could comparing the ID and the inspection information and coming to a conclusion. The claim additionally recites “wherein the controller” which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “by matching the ID of the at least one electrode and the inspection information of the at least one notched electrode” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. For example language, “matching” in the context of this claim encompasses that the user mentally could compare the given information. Additionally the claim recites- “and transmits the integrated inspection information to a server” which is simply insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering and transmitting which is considered to be well- US20180137371 [0029] transmitting… inspection data to a server through a network, and US20230132587 [0005] server for receiving the inspection data transmitted). The claim additionally recites “wherein the controller”, and “generates integrated inspection information of the at least one notched electrode” which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Generating information is considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity – US20160078906 [0017] the controller 2 generates a chip, [0020] generation information as the chip identification information, and US20160248481[0073] generate the identification information e.g. user-id. Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 for similar reasons to claim 2.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 for similar reasons to claim 3.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 for similar reasons to claim 4.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 for similar reasons to claim 5.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 for similar reasons to claim 6.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 for similar reasons to claim 7.
Relevant Art Cited by Examiner
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
Mahajan, US20210123870 discloses monitoring including retrieving a set of images captured for the battery pack and comparing these images to currently captured images to determine discrepancies in the batteries.
Noji, US20140158885 discloses generating an inspection result file including the coordinates and images of all areas of the inspection object including defects.
Jeong, KR20130073300 discloses a vision inspection unit providing an electrode notching device including a rewinder unit.
Kwon, US20230074096 discloses obtaining electrode vision image data capturing images of negative and positive electrode plates, and marking a cell barcode for identification.
Oh, US20230074096 discloses a battery cell electrode alignment inspection method for battery pack of vehicle.
Yong-seop, WO2021256770 discloses a printed circuit board including sensing circuits capable of measuring electrical states of the electrode tabs of the batteries.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are considered as allowable subject matter if written to overcome the 101 rejection, claims 15-16 are objected to. The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The reasons for allowance of Claims 1, and 8 are that the prior art of record, including the reference(s) cited below, neither anticipates, not renders obvious the recited combination as a whole; including the limitations of:
“wherein the first sensor is configured to determine a pitch of the at least one electrode in the roll-to-roll state and generate count information based on the pitch of the at least one electrode in the roll-to-roll state, receive coordinates of a position of the at least one electrode in the roll-to-roll state from a second sensor, and generate identification information for the at least one electrode on the basis of the specification information and the coordinates of the position”
As dependent claims 2-7, and 9-16 depend from an allowable base claim; they are at least allowable for the same reasons as noted supra. The prior art made of record Mahajan, Noji, Jeong, Kwon, Oh, and Yong-seop neither anticipates nor render obvious the above-recited combinations for at least the reasons specified.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Lee (US20190058181) discloses an integration wrapper performing notching on electrodes.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 YVONNE T FOLLANSBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 1pm - 9pm.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/YVONNE TRANG FOLLANSBEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights