FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This final office action addresses U.S. Application No. 18/893,439, which is a broadening reissue application of U.S. Application No. 14/939,152 (hereinafter the “152 Application"), entitled ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND BATTERY CHARE/DISCHARGE CONTROL METHOD THEREOF, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,853,476 (hereinafter the “476 Patent") on December 26, 2017.
The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 28-31, 34, 36 and 37 are pending and examined herein.
Claims 28-31, 34, 36 and 37 are rejected.
I. STATUS OF CLAIMS
Applicant filed an amendment on July 9, 2026 (hereinafter the "July 2026 Amendment") in response to the non-final Office action mailed March 11, 2026 (hereinafter the “2026 NF Action”). In the July 2026 Amendment, the specification was amended to change cross-noting information, claims 1-27 were cancelled and new claims 28-31, 34, 36 and 37 were new (with respect to the 476 Patent).
Therefore, claims 28-31, 34, 36 and 37 are pending and will be examined herein.
In view of the amendments to the claims, the recapture rejections provided in the 2026 NF Action are withdrawn. Specifically, Examiners find the pending and examined claims recite the more salient features of SGL(4) (See 2026 NF Action pages 9-10) and thus the recapture rejections are overcome.
II. PRIORITY
Examiners acknowledge the claim that the present reissue application is a continuation reissue application of U.S. Application No. 16/686,359, filed November 18, 2019, now abandoned (hereinafter the “359 Reissue Application”). Examiners further acknowledge that the present application and the 359 Reissue Application are both reissues of the 152 Application, now the 476 Patent. Examiners finally acknowledge the Applicant’s claim of foreign priority to KR10-2014-0157840, filed November 13, 2014.
III. REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
III.A. Indefiniteness Rejections
Claims 28-31, 34, 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
For example, each of claims 28-31, 34, 36 and 37 recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
222
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As recited above, Examiners find the claim requires a processor to “generate” usage pattern information based on time information and comprises first and second usage patterns. However, Examiners find that “usage pattern information” is not defined in the specification of the 476 Patent nor is the nature of this information disclosed or discussed. Rather this phrase is merely repeated throughout the specification. Furthermore, since this usage pattern information now comprises two other types of usage patterns, i.e., the first usage pattern and the second usage pattern, which somehow correspond to time periods of the day, Examiners find this implies the creation or generation of something different from this other information or a combination thereof. This something different is not disclosed or discussed in the 476 Patent.
Furthermore, Examiners find the specification of the 476 Patent simply repeats the claim language that this undefined usage pattern information is “generated” without disclosing of discussing the steps necessary to generate such information. For example, the 476 Patent states “the electronic device 201 may set the charge voltage 620 of the battery 296 using the usage pattern information generated on the basis of the time information.” See 476 Patent col. 20, lines 53-55. What does it mean to “generate” this usage pattern information and what is its structure or nature? Thus, Examiners find this generate step is unclear as to the nature of the usage pattern information and further find the step is unclear as to how this usage pattern information is generated based on this other information, even when read on light of the specification. The claims provide no guidance as to how the device connection (first pattern) and consuming of electric power (second pattern) are combined to generate such usage pattern information.
In view of the forgoing, Examiners are unable to determine the scope of the claim. Specifically, what are the Examiners supposed to find in the prior art? Examiners find that U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0184163 et al. to Das et al. (hereinafter “Das”) monitors time information and previous connection to construct a charge strategy that uses a faster charge speed during day and a slower charge speed at night. Thus, Das discloses using information to determine a usage profile to develop a charge strategy. However, without knowing the nature of the Applicant’s “usage pattern” information or how it is “generated” based on the two types of other usage pattern information, Examiners are unable to determine whether this prior art would be applicable to reject the claim. In view of the forgoing, Examiners are unable to determine the scope of the generating step of claims 28-31, 34, 36 and 37 and thus Examiners conclude the claims are indefinite.
III.B. Written Description Rejection – generate…
Claims 28-31, 34, 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. While this rejection identifies the same limitation as in the indefiniteness rejection above, it relates to a different issue with respect to the limitation.
Each of claims 28-31, 34, 36 and 37 recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
222
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Based on this recitation, Examiners find that it is directed to a programming or algorithm aspect of the invention. Specifically, this limitation is directed to taking certain types of information and “generating” usage pattern information using some formula, algorithm, or other function. Thus, Examiners determine herein that this limitation is a computer-implemented type of functional limitation. However, Examiners are unable to find a disclosure or written description of the algorithm or programming for performing this generating step and the nature of the usage pattern information based on the three types of required information.
Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. See MPEP §2161.01(I) and §2163.03(V). For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). See Id. In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See Id.
As cited above, col. 5, lines 40-44 of the 476 Patent discloses:
According to various embodiments, when the battery charge/discharge mode is set to an automatic configuration mode, the processor 120 may be configured to generate usage pattern information of the battery that is based on the charge/discharge state of the battery.
As further cited above, col. 5, lines 3-7 of the 476 Patent discloses
The processor 120 may generate the usage pattern information of the battery based on, for example, at least one type of information from among time information and location information.
Based on these findings, Examiners find that at most the 476 Patent merely repeats the function recited in this claim limitation, i.e., “generating the usage pattern information.” However, other than simply repeat this “generating,” Examiners are unable to find any algorithm or program that takes in certain information to generate this usage pattern information. Specifically, how are each of the various types of information used or combined to generate usage pattern information in the context of a computer, or what is the structure or nature of this usage pattern information? Examiners find no discussion of how this information is combined to create an overall usage pattern information, nor do Examiners find a discussion or disclosure of what this usage pattern information is or looks like. At most the 476 Patent merely repeats “generating” generically with no further detail thereof. Specifically, Examiners are unable to find any algorithm or programming steps to perform the function of generating.
Thus, Examiners are unable to determine the scope of the claim limitation and thus are unable to find a written description of any algorithm for “generating.” Specifically, what are the Examiners supposed to find in the prior art with regard to generating? Examiners find that U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0077754 to Carmichael et al. (hereinafter “Carmichael”) monitors activity usage patterns and locations to construct a charge strategy, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0184163 et al. to Das et al. (hereinafter “Das”) monitors time information to construct a charge strategy and further U.S. Patent No. 6,337,560 to Kalogeropoulos et al. (hereinafter “Life Cycle”) considers the number of charge cycles to determine maximum charge voltage. Thus, each of the prior art discloses the various types of information to determine a charge strategy. However, without knowing the nature of the Applicant’s usage pattern information based on various types of data or how it is “generated” based on such information, i.e., what is the algorithm or programming, Examiners are unable to determine what is the meaning of this limitation and further whether this prior art would be applicable to reject the claim.
In view of the forgoing, Examiners find the step of generating the usage pattern information was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed had possession of the claimed invention. Accordingly, Examiners conclude the claims lack a clear written description with regard to this feature.
IV. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
After careful review of the original specification, the prosecution history, and unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiners, the Examiners find that they are unable to locate any lexicographic definitions (either express or implied) with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision with regard to pending and examined claims. Because the Examiners are unable to locate any lexicographic definitions with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision, the Examiners conclude that Applicant is not his own lexicographer for the pending and examined claims. See MPEP §2111.01(IV).
The Examiners further find that because the pending and examined claims herein recite neither “step for” nor “means for” nor any substitute therefore, the examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I). Because all examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I), the Examiners conclude that all examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f). See also Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215-16 (B.P.A.I. 2008)(precedential)(where the Board did not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because “means for” was not recited and because applicant still possessed an opportunity to amend the claims).
Because of the Examiners’ findings above that Applicant is not his own lexicographer and the pending and examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f) the pending and examined claims will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification since patentee has an opportunity to amend claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP §2111.01(I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP §2111.01(II).
V. COMPACT PROSECUTION
The Examiners find that because claims 28-31, 34, 36 and 37 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112(B) as outlined above, it is impossible to properly construe claim scope at this time. See Honeywell International Inc. v. ITC, 68 USPQ2d 1023, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Because the claims are indefinite, the claims, by definition, cannot be construed.”). However, in accordance with MPEP §2173.06 and the USPTO’s policy of trying to advance prosecution by providing art rejections even though the claims are indefinite, the claims are construed and the art is applied as much as practically possible in the following art rejections.
VI. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §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.
VI.A. Obviousness Rejections Applying Carmichael and Ji
Claims 28, 31, 34, 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being obvious over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0077754 to Steven Carmichael et al. (hereinafter “Carmichael”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0011452 to Junhak Ji et al. (hereinafter “Ji”).
Regarding claim 28, Carmichael teaches:
28. (New, amended) An electronic device comprising:
See Carmichael FIGS. 5 and 6, reprinted below
PNG
media_image2.png
384
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Carmichael FIG. 5
PNG
media_image3.png
308
614
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Carmichael FIG. 6
See also Carmichael ¶0051 which states “[w]hile FIG. 6 shows the battery 650 external to the battery charger 600, as mentioned previously, there is no objection to embodiments where the battery and battery charger are contained in a single housing, for example, within a rechargeable device.” Thus, the components of FIGS. 5 and 6 are contained in a single electronic device.
a rechargeable battery;
See FIGS. 5 and 6 above, rechargeable battery 650.
at least one processor;
See FIGS. 5 and 6 above, processor 502.
a power supply circuit; and
See FIGS. 5 and 6 above, power supply circuit 620.
memory that stores instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the electronic device to:
See FIGS. 5 and 6 above, processor 502 and memory 506 with software 508.
generate usage pattern information of the rechargeable battery based on time information, wherein the usage pattern information includes a first usage pattern corresponding to the electronic device maintaining a connection to an external charger during a first time period of a day and a second usage pattern corresponding to the electronic device consuming power of the rechargeable battery during a second time period of the day,
See Carmichael ¶¶0027-0028 and ¶¶0033-0034:
PNG
media_image4.png
874
696
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
160
684
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
406
684
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Based on these disclosures, the device of Carmichael monitors usage of the electronic device throughout the day. During normal working hours (7am-3pm), the electronic device develops a first usage pattern of use wherein the device is heavily used. Further, the electronic device develops a second usage pattern at times other that this time period (3pm-7am) when the battery use is not heavy and the battery is being charged, i.e., connected to the charger.
selecting charging modes of the rechargeable battery, wherein the charging modes of the rechargeable battery include a user configuration mode and an automatically charging mode,
See Carmichael ¶¶0030-0032:
PNG
media_image7.png
632
684
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Based this disclosure, the electronic device of Carmichael has an automatic charging mode based on the schedule and further an override, user configuration mode, wherein the user can manually override the automatic mode via a user selection.
in response to receiving a user input for selecting the user configuration mode, charge the recharge battery to a charging voltage obtained from the user,
See Carmichael ¶¶0030-0034 above.
in response to receiving a user input for selecting the automatically charging mode, charge the recharge battery based on the first usage pattern or the second usage pattern,
wherein the charging the recharge battery based on the first usage pattern and the second usage pattern comprises: configure first charge/discharge information of the rechargeable battery based on the first usage pattern and second charge/discharge information of the rechargeable battery based on the second usage pattern, charge the rechargeable battery, during the first time period, to a first charge voltage based on the first configured charge/discharge information while the electronic device is connected to the external charger, and charge the rechargeable battery, during the second time period, to a second charge voltage based on the second configured charge/discharge information while the electronic device is connected to the external charger, the second charge voltage being higher than the first charge voltage.
See Carmichael ¶¶0027-0028 and FIG. 3, reprinted below, wherein during
PNG
media_image8.png
364
798
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Carmichael FIG. 2
high use during the worktime hours (7am-3pm) during the second usage pattern, the battery is charged to the higher charge level 50 and during the rest of the day, during the first usage pattern, the battery is charged the lower charge voltage level 250.
However, while Carmichael teaches the user being able to select between the automatic charging mode and the user configuration mode, Carmichael does not teach a display for such selection. Nevertheless, Ji, as shown a portion of FIG. 5 below, teaches an electronic device 503 that has a display with a screen 140 which allows the user to select between automatic and manual modes. It would have been obvious to
PNG
media_image9.png
264
196
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Ji FIG. 5 (in part)
incorporate a display into the electronic device of Carmichael to allow the user to select between automatic and manual modes via a screen as taught by Ji. One having ordinary skill in the art would do so to simply provide a means for selection of the modes of Carmichael.
Furthermore, such a combination is merely using a known technique to improve a similar device. As provided above, Examiners find Carmichael teaches an electronic device that discloses the more salient features of claim 29 and further the functionality of selecting between automatic and manual modes. Examiners further find Ji teaches a comparable electronic device that provides a manner to select between automatic and manual modes using a display screen. Examiners further find that one having ordinary skill in the art would incorporate the manner of mode selection of Ji into the electronic device of Carmichael, as such would merely provide a means to carry out the function already disclosed by Carmichael. Thus, the combination would also be predictable.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Carmichael and Ji teach the device of claim 28 and further:
31. (New) The electronic device of claim 28, wherein the first time period is
night time period and the second time period is lunch time period.
Note combination for claim 29 proposed above. Further see Carmichael ¶¶0027-0028 and ¶¶0033-0034 wherein the second time period occurs during the workday (7am-3pm) which covers lunch time period and the first time period covers the rest of the day which would cover the night time.
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Carmichael and Ji teach the device of claim 28 and further:
34. (New) The electronic device of claim 28, wherein the instructions. when
executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to charge the rechargeable battery, during night of Friday, to the first charge voltage, and charge the rechargeable battery, during Saturday, to the second charge voltage.
Further see Carmichael ¶0035-0036:
PNG
media_image10.png
628
576
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Under this learning mode, Carmichael disclose modifying the usage pattern and charging voltage schedule based on detected events, times, and dates. Thus, simply choosing Friday or Saturday for higher or lower charge voltages would be within the ordinary operation of the electronic device of Carmichael.
Regarding claim 36, Examiner find this claim is merely the method of operation of the processor recited in claim 28 and thus since the combination of Carmichael and Ji teaches the features of claim 28 as provided above, this combination similarly teaches the method of claim 36.
Regarding claim 37, Examiner find this claim is merely a computer readable medium (CRM) claim reciting the operation of the processor recited in claim 28 and thus since the combination of Carmichael and Ji teaches the features of claim 28 as provided above, this combination similarly teaches the features of CRM claim 37.
VI.B. Obviousness Rejections Over Carmichael, Ji and Das
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being obvious over Carmichael in view Ji as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0184163 to Ripan Das et al. (hereinafter “Das”).
Regarding claim 29, Carmichael and Ji teaches the usage pattern based on usage and time of day, but not location. Nevertheless, Das teaches a similar battery charge management system for an electronic device that uses location information to implement a charge routine. See Das ¶0008. It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to use location information to determine the usage pattern information of Carmichael as taught by Das. One having ordinary skill in the art would do so because as noted in Carmichael in ¶0036 above, the system in a learning mode may use other conditions and events to modify the charge schedule as needed and thus contemplate other input for the charge schedule. Furthermore, Das teaches monitoring location information to inform the electronic device when the user has entered a high or low activity location for the electronic device and to adjust the charging accordingly. See Das ¶0036.
Regarding claim 30, Carmichael and Ji teaches charging to different voltages based on heavy or low use time periods for the electronic device, but not high and low speed charge routines. Nevertheless, Das teaches during high activity use times/locations, using a fast charge routine and during low activity use times/locations using a slow charge routine. See Das ¶0036. It would have been obvious to use the fast and slow charge routines during the second and first time periods for the electronic device of Carmichael as taught by Das. One having ordinary skill in the art would do so to allow the user to quickly charge the battery of the electronic device during periods/locations of high use of the electronic device.
VI.C. Obviousness Rejections Over Carmichael, Ji and Life Cycle
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being obvious over Carmichael in view Ji as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,337,560 to Sarandis Kalogeropoulos et al. (hereinafter “Life Cycle”). Regarding this claim, Examiners find Carmichael and Ji teach the device of claim 28 and further would render obvious the operation recited in claim 34. To the extent that specific days are not considered as time periods, Life Cycle teaches a similar battery charge management system for an electronic device that monitors the usage of the electronic device over the days of the week and recognizes that high activity usage on weekdays and lower activity usage on weekends and changes voltages of the charge routines on a basis thereof. See Life Cycle col. 9, lines 36-51 and col. 10, line 25 to col. 11, line 4. It would have been obvious to further monitor usage of the electronic device based on days of the week and further modify the charge routines according for the electronic device of Carmichael as taught by Life Cycle. One having ordinary skill in the art would do so because as noted in Carmichael in ¶0036 above, the system in a learning mode may use other conditions and events to modify the charge schedule as needed and thus contemplate other input for the charge schedule. Furthermore, by modifying the charge voltages based on the days of high and low usage would increase the cycle life of the battery. See Life Cycle col. 9, lines 36-51.
VII. EXAMINERS’ RESPSONSES TO APPLICANT’ ARGUMENTS
Examiners have fully considered the Applicant’s arguments provided in the July 2026 Amendment.
Regarding the arguments traversing the recapture rejection on page 17 of the July 2026 Amendment and traversing the oath objection on page 19 of the July 2026 Amendment, Examiners agree that based on the amendments to the claims, the recapture issue and the oath objection are overcome.
On pages 17-19 of the July 2026 Response, Applicant traverses the written description and quotes several portions of the specification of the 476 Patent. Examiners do not find these arguments persuasive. The noted portions of the specification simply highlight the issue. The claims recite “generating” usage pattern information from other information. Thus, since this invention is a computer-oriented invention, there is should be some algorithm or programming steps in the specification how this “generating” is accomplished. However, the specification does not state how this generating is accomplished, but merely repeats the term over and over again, without any detail of what it means to “generate” usage pattern information.
On page 19 of the July 2026 Amendment, Applicant submits that the amendments to claim 29 overcomes the new matter rejection under both 35 U.S.C. §112(a) and §251 of this claim. Examiners agree and the new matter rejection of claim 29 has been withdrawn.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments traversing the art rejections on pages 20-23 of the July 2026 Amendment, Examiners note these arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection provided in this Office action.
VIII. PRIOR OR CONCURRENT PROCEEDINGS
Applicant is reminded of the obligation apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceedings in which the 476 Patent is or was involved, such as interferences or trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, reissues, reexaminations, or litigations and the results of such proceedings.
IX. INFORMATION MATERIAL TO PATENTABILITY
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. §1.56 to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
X. CONCLUSION
Claims 28-31, 34, 36 and 37 are pending.
Claims 28-31, 34, 36 and 37 are rejected.
Applicant's substantial amendments provided in the July 2026 Amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP §706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. §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 C.F.R. §1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §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.
The prior art made of record which is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is listed on the document titled ‘Notice of Reference Cited’ (“PTO-892”). Unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiners, all documents listed on the PTO-892 are cited in their entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to KENNETH WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2264. The Examiner can normally be reached on 8:30am - 5:00pm, Monday - Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Fischer, SPE Art Unit 3992, can be reached at (571) 272-6779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-9900.
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.
/KENNETH WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/MY TRANG TON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ANDREW J. FISCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights