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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 09/12/2025.
Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application JP2023-038292 filed in Japan on 03/13/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) because the claim limitations use 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 limitations are:
“a calculation unit” in claims 1 and 3-13
“a storage unit” in claim 1
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the calculation unit, specification paragraph [0046] recites that a calculation unit “can be implemented by hardware such as a circuit device where a function thereof is provided, or can also be implemented by a calculation device such as a central processing unit (CPU) executing software where the function is provided”. This passage provides physical structure, but does not provide an explicit definition that would have prevented “unit” from being interpreted under 112(f) as a generic placeholder like “means”. The corresponding algorithm for the calculation unit can be found in at least paragraphs [0015]-[0032].
Regarding the storage unit, Examiner is interpreting the limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the neither the claim nor the specification provide an explicit definition of “storage unit” that would have prevented “unit” from being interpreted under 112(f) as a generic placeholder like “means”. Additionally, the presentation of “calculation unit” in the specification and claims in a manner consistent with invoking 112(f) indicates that Applicant intends to invoke 112(f) for the ”units” of the claims. However, while specification [0012] recites “The storage unit 12 stores data to be used by the calculation unit 11” for a corresponding algorithm, the specification does not provide any physical structure for the storage unit. See 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/(b) sections below.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
Claims 1-13 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.
As discussed above, the claim 1 limitation of “storage unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As discussed in the claim interpretation section above and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) section below, the specification does not provide physical structure corresponding to the storage unit. This lack of corresponding physical structure in the specification would leave one of ordinary skill in the art without a clear idea of what Applicant had possession of at the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As discussed below, for example, one of ordinary skill in the art would be unsure if Applicant is showing possession of a tangible memory like RAM or disk that is storing the data. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unsure of what physical structure Applicant is claiming as part of the of the claimed invention, and consequently usure of what disclosure is required in the specification to support such a claim limitation as “storage unit”. As one of ordinary skill in the art would be unsure of what a “storage unit” is in the claims and specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the effective filing date. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Regarding claims 2-13, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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.
Claim limitation “storage unit” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Particularly, the specification does not provide a physical structure for the storage unit. While [0012] recites that the storage unit stores data to be used by the calculation unit, no physical structure is provided for storing the data. Accordingly, the scope covered by the “storage unit” is indefinite. For example, without an indication of physical structure for the storage unit, it is unclear whether the “storage unit” comprises tangible components like RAM or a non-transitory memory, a combination of some kind of hardware and software, etc. One of ordinary skill in the art would have no concept of what physical structures are covered by “storage unit” and what physical structures are not covered in the scope of the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The scopes of claims 2-13 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on indefinite claim 1. Claims 2-13 are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the determination of an economically efficient remediation action for a failing battery.
As an initial matter, claims 1-13 fall into at least the machine category of statutory subject matter. Therefore, all claims fall into at least one of the statutory categories. Eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
In claim 1, the limitation of “a calculation unit configured to estimate states of health of a plurality of batteries”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “A battery deterioration degree management system comprising: a calculation unit,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “and a storage unit configured to store data to be used by the calculation unit, wherein the calculation unit identifies, among the plurality of batteries, a battery for which a measure against a decrease in the states of health needs to be implemented, the calculation unit calculates a cost necessary for implementing the measure based on cost data describing at least one of a temporal change in cost along with implementation of the measure and a prediction thereof, and the calculation unit determines, among the plurality of measures, a measure capable of maximizing an economic effect and an implementation timing thereof based on the calculated cost”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. 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 claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the concept of mitigating the risk of a failing battery which is a certain method of organizing human activity including fundamental economic practices and principles. Estimate states of health of a plurality of batteries; and store data to be used, wherein the calculation identifies, among the plurality of batteries, a battery for which a measure against a decrease in the states of health needs to be implemented, calculates a cost necessary for implementing the measure based on cost data describing at least one of a temporal change in cost along with implementation of the measure and a prediction thereof, and the calculation determines, among the plurality of measures, a measure capable of maximizing an economic effect and an implementation timing thereof based on the calculated cost all, as a whole, fall under the category of fundamental economic practices and principles. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites the concept of calculating a cost for implementing a measure based on cost data describing costs for implementing a measure, which a mathematical concept including mathematical calculations. Calculates a cost necessary for implementing the measure based on cost data describing at least one of a temporal change in cost along with implementation of the measure and a prediction thereof, and determines, among the plurality of measures, a measure capable of maximizing an economic effect and an implementation timing thereof based on the calculated cost all, as a whole, recites the concept of mathematical calculations. The claim falls into the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a battery deterioration degree management system, a calculation unit, and a storage unit. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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 combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, 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 is directed to an 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 elements of a battery deterioration degree management system, a calculation unit, and a storage unit amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-13 further limit the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Izumi et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0308120, hereafter known as Izumi).
Regarding claim 1, Izumi teaches:
A battery deterioration degree management system comprising (see Fig. 10 and [0037] "The battery cellar 2 includes a server 20 for managing data related to the used batteries 9, and a plurality of storage cabinets 21. The battery cellar 2 corresponds to the “battery management system” according to the present disclosure" and [0095]-[0104] for overall system)
a calculation unit configured to estimate states of health of a plurality of batteries (see [0063] "The server 20 includes a processor such as a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a memory such as a ROM (Read Only Memory) and a RAM (Random Access Memory), and input/output ports (none of which is shown) through which various signals are input/output. The server 20 performs various controls based on signals received from the sensors as well as programs and maps stored in the memory. The server 20 includes a battery data memory unit 201, a degradation evaluation unit 202, a power adjustment unit 203, a time adjustment unit 204, and a display unit 205" and [0066]-[0070] for the degradation calculation unit in particular)
and a storage unit configured to store data to be used by the calculation unit (see [0064] "The battery data memory unit 201 stores battery data to be used for managing the used batteries 9 in the battery cellar 2" and [0063] for the battery data memory unit storing data for battery calculations. Examiner is interpreting a memory as a storage unit)
wherein the calculation unit identifies, among the plurality of batteries, a battery for which a measure against a decrease in the states of health needs to be implemented (see [0070]-[0080], especially [0074] "a degradation evaluation test is periodically performed on the first battery, the second battery and the third battery. A reference value CX is set for comparison with the full charge capacity of each of the first battery, the second battery and the third battery. In the first battery, the second battery and the third battery, if the full charge capacity of a used battery 9 is smaller than the reference value CX, this used battery is determined to be a used battery that requires replacement" and [0078] for performing degradation tests to determine batteries needing replacement. See Fig. 10 and [0096]-[0104] for degradation evaluation details)
the calculation unit calculates a cost necessary for implementing the measure based on cost data describing at least one of a temporal change in cost along with implementation of the measure and a prediction thereof (see [0071] "regarding the plurality of used batteries stored in the storage cabinet 21 of the battery cellar 2, it is desirable to replace a part of the used batteries 9 that have degraded to a certain extent (such as the used batteries 9 that have degraded to the extent of material recycling) with other used batteries that do not degrade to such extent. However, the replacement of the used batteries 9 requires labor and cost" and [0080] "in the comparative example, since the second battery and the third battery are replaced separately, the used batteries 9 are replaced twice in total. On the other hand, in the present embodiment, the second battery is also replaced at the time of replacing the third battery (early replacement). Thus, the used batteries 9 are replaced once, which makes it possible to reduce the number of times of replacing the used batteries 9 as compared with the comparative example. Therefore, it is possible to reduce labor and cost for replacing the used batteries" for calculating labor and cost of replacing batteries early by determining that the number of battery replacements will be reduced, resulting in a corresponding reduction in labor and cost that occurs during each battery replacement. Examiner is interpreting the labor and cost required for a replacement as "cost data" and the "temporal change in cost" is the change in cost for each instance of going in to replace a battery(ies). The prediction in cost change is that the number of times back-to-back battery replacements (i.e. needing to replace at time t1 and again at time t2) are eliminated as batteries that are predicted to fail in the next time period are replaced early)
and the calculation unit determines, among the plurality of measures, a measure capable of maximizing an economic effect and an implementation timing thereof based on the calculated cost (see [0078]-[0080], particularly "In the (N+1)th degradation evaluation test, the full charge capacity of the first battery is greater than the reference value CY, the full charge capacity of the second battery is greater than the reference value CX but smaller than the reference value CY, and the full charge capacity of the third battery is smaller than the reference value CX. In this case, the third battery is determined to be a replacement-required battery as in the comparative example. In addition, according to the present embodiment, the second battery is also determined to be a replacement-required battery. This is because, since the full charge capacity of the second battery is greater than the reference value CX but smaller than the reference value CY, it is predicted that the full charge capacity of the second battery will become smaller than the reference value CX in the near future (for example, in the next degradation evaluation test)" and [0080] "As described above, in the comparative example, since the second battery and the third battery are replaced separately, the used batteries 9 are replaced twice in total. On the other hand, in the present embodiment, the second battery is also replaced at the time of replacing the third battery (early replacement). Thus, the used batteries 9 are replaced once, which makes it possible to reduce the number of times of replacing the used batteries 9 as compared with the comparative example. Therefore, it is possible to reduce labor and cost for replacing the used batteries" for determining that the measure of a battery between Cx and Cy is replacement when at least one other battery is below Cx condition to optimize labor and cost by reducing the number of times batteries need to be replaced. Also see Fig. 9 and [0090]-[0094] for scenarios in which the number of batteries that meet replacement criteria is greater than the number of batteries that can be replaced at one time)
Regarding claim 2, Izumi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Izumi further teaches:
wherein the measure is at least one of rebalancing for equalizing states of charge of the plurality of batteries, rebuilding for regenerating the batteries, and diverting the batteries to other applications having different performance requirement levels (see [0080] "As described above, in the comparative example, since the second battery and the third battery are replaced separately, the used batteries 9 are replaced twice in total. On the other hand, in the present embodiment, the second battery is also replaced at the time of replacing the third battery (early replacement). Thus, the used batteries 9 are replaced once, which makes it possible to reduce the number of times of replacing the used batteries 9 as compared with the comparative example. Therefore, it is possible to reduce labor and cost for replacing the used batteries" for the measure being replacement. See [0106]-[0114], especially [0110] "The used battery selection unit 84 selects a used battery from the plurality of the used batteries 9 to perform the power adjustment based on the kWh (bat) obtained from the battery cellar adjustment amount calculation unit 83. When kWh (bat)>0, the power shortage of the power system 5 is compensated by the electric power discharged from the used batteries in the battery cellar 2. Therefore, the used battery selection unit 84 selects a number of used batteries 9 capable of discharge an amount of electric power equal to or greater than the kWh (bat). On the other hand, when kWh (bat)<0, the power surplus of the power system 5 is absorbed by charging the used batteries in the battery cellar 2. Therefore, the used battery selection unit 84 selects a number of used batteries 9 that may be charged with an amount of electric power equal to or greater than the kWh (bat) (absolute value)" for power adjustments to selected batteries that can receive/provide an amount of energy and not selecting batteries that cannot meet the provision/receiving requirements, resulting in rebalancing SOC's of batteries. See [0039] " the customer 3 purchases the used batteries 9 determined to be recyclable from the battery cellar 2. The customer 3 may include a vendor 31 who sells the used battery 9 as a vehicular battery, and a user 32 who uses the used battery 9 as a stationary battery in a factory, building, or the like" for diverting the battery to other applications. Examiner notes that only one of the types of measures is required to teach claim 2)
Regarding claim 3, Izumi teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above. Izumi further teaches:
wherein the calculation unit selects the rebalancing as the measure when the state of health is equal to or greater than a first threshold (see [0077] "As illustrated in FIG. 7, in the Nth (N is a positive integer) degradation evaluation test, the full charge capacity of each of the first battery and the second battery is greater than the reference value CY...it is determined that there is no replacement-required battery" for the health of the second battery being greater than a first threshold CY. See [0106]-[0114] for the power adjustment of unreplaced batteries (i.e. batteries greater than threshold CY), and [0110] "The used battery selection unit 84 selects a used battery from the plurality of the used batteries 9 to perform the power adjustment based on the kWh (bat) obtained from the battery cellar adjustment amount calculation unit 83. When kWh (bat)>0, the power shortage of the power system 5 is compensated by the electric power discharged from the used batteries in the battery cellar 2. Therefore, the used battery selection unit 84 selects a number of used batteries 9 capable of discharge an amount of electric power equal to or greater than the kWh (bat). On the other hand, when kWh (bat)<0, the power surplus of the power system 5 is absorbed by charging the used batteries in the battery cellar 2. Therefore, the used battery selection unit 84 selects a number of used batteries 9 that may be charged with an amount of electric power equal to or greater than the kWh (bat) (absolute value)" for rebalancing the SOCs of the unreplaced batteries based on power needs)
and the calculation unit selects the rebuilding as the measure when the state of health is equal to or greater than a second threshold that is equal to or less than the first threshold (see [0078] "In the (N+1)th degradation evaluation test, the full charge capacity of the first battery is greater than the reference value CY, the full charge capacity of the second battery is greater than the reference value CX but smaller than the reference value CY...In addition, according to the present embodiment, the second battery is also determined to be a replacement-required battery" for determining that the second battery needs to be replaced when the state of health is greater than threshold Cx (second threshold) but less than threshold Cy. Examiner notes that Applicant's specification [0019] explicitly considers replacement as rebuilding)
Regarding claim 4, Izumi teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above. Izumi further teaches:
wherein when the states of health of all of the plurality of batteries are equal to or greater than a third threshold, the calculation unit selects, as the measure, diversion to another application having a higher performance requirement level than a current operation environment of the plurality of batteries (see [0050] for battery ranking for all batteries based on amount of degradation, [0110] "The used batteries 9 may be selected in such a manner that the used batteries 9 with a lower demand rank will be preferentially charged or discharged, whereas the used battery 9 with a higher demand rank will not be charged or discharged as much as possible", and [0103] "The rank of the used battery 9 is displayed on the display unit 205 together with the battery ID, the storage position of the used battery 9 and the like. As a result, when a request to purchase the used battery 9 is received from the customer 3, an employee of the battery cellar 2 may take out the used battery 9 having a rank corresponding to the request of the customer 3 from the storage position". In case in which all batteries are higher than a threshold health rank, the system will divert them from the routine charging/discharging process, which can be performed with batteries of Rank C per [0050], and sell them to customers requiring batteries of a higher rank for their application)
and when the states of health of all of the plurality of batteries are equal to or less than a fourth threshold less than the third threshold, the calculation unit selects, as the measure, diversion to another application having a lower performance requirement level than the current operation environment of the plurality of batteries (see [0050] "In the present embodiment, the used batteries 9 are ranked based on the result of the degradation evaluation test (more specifically, the measurement result of the full charge capacity). For example, as illustrated in FIG. 2, the used batteries 9 that may be rebuilt are ranked in the descending order of the full charge capacity into four ranks: rank S, rank A, rank B, and rank C. Thus, the trade price of each used battery 9 may be determined in association with the rank thereof, and the quality of each used battery 9 may be guaranteed in association with the rank thereof. Therefore, the used batteries 9 may be smoothly distributed from the battery cellar 2 to the market. A used battery 9, the full charge capacity of which is less than a prescribed value, is ranked lower than rank C (represented as Re), and is transported to the material recycling" for the measuring of the degradation state of all batteries. In a case in which all batteries are below rank C, all batteries are diverted to material recycling, which has a lower performance requirement than the current charging/discharging requirement (rank C) of being used in the battery cellar)
Regarding claim 5, Izumi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Izumi further teaches:
wherein the cost data describes, as the cost, at least one of a temporal-fluctuating labor cost generated along with implementation of the measure and a temporal-fluctuating facility cost generated along with the implementation of the measure (see [0071] "regarding the plurality of used batteries stored in the storage cabinet 21 of the battery cellar 2, it is desirable to replace a part of the used batteries 9 that have degraded to a certain extent (such as the used batteries 9 that have degraded to the extent of material recycling) with other used batteries that do not degrade to such extent. However, the replacement of the used batteries 9 requires labor and cost" and [0080] "in the comparative example, since the second battery and the third battery are replaced separately, the used batteries 9 are replaced twice in total. On the other hand, in the present embodiment, the second battery is also replaced at the time of replacing the third battery (early replacement). Thus, the used batteries 9 are replaced once, which makes it possible to reduce the number of times of replacing the used batteries 9 as compared with the comparative example. Therefore, it is possible to reduce labor and cost for replacing the used batteries" for calculating labor and cost of replacing batteries early by determining that the number of battery replacements will be reduced, resulting in a corresponding reduction in labor and cost that occurs during each battery replacement. Examiner is interpreting the labor and cost required for a replacement as "cost data" and the "temporal fluctuation in cost" is the change in total cost for each instance of going in to replace a battery(ies))
and the calculation unit calculates the economic effect using at least one of the temporal- fluctuating labor cost described in the cost data and the temporal-fluctuating facility cost described in the cost data (see [0071] "regarding the plurality of used batteries stored in the storage cabinet 21 of the battery cellar 2, it is desirable to replace a part of the used batteries 9 that have degraded to a certain extent (such as the used batteries 9 that have degraded to the extent of material recycling) with other used batteries that do not degrade to such extent. However, the replacement of the used batteries 9 requires labor and cost" and [0080] "in the comparative example, since the second battery and the third battery are replaced separately, the used batteries 9 are replaced twice in total. On the other hand, in the present embodiment, the second battery is also replaced at the time of replacing the third battery (early replacement). Thus, the used batteries 9 are replaced once, which makes it possible to reduce the number of times of replacing the used batteries 9 as compared with the comparative example. Therefore, it is possible to reduce labor and cost for replacing the used batteries" for calculating labor and cost of replacing batteries early by determining that the number of battery replacements will be reduced, resulting in a corresponding reduction in labor and cost that occurs during each battery replacement. Examiner is interpreting the labor and cost required for a replacement as "cost data" and the "temporal fluctuation in cost" is the change in total cost for each instance of going in to replace a battery(ies). The prediction in cost change is that the number of times back-to-back battery replacements (i.e. needing to replace at time t1 and again at time t2) are eliminated as batteries that are predicted to fail in the next time period are replaced early)
Regarding claim 6, Izumi teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above. Izumi further teaches:
wherein the cost data describes, as the cost, at least one of a temporal-fluctuating labor cost generated along with implementation of the measure and a temporal-fluctuating facility cost generated along with the implementation of the measure (see [0071] "regarding the plurality of used batteries stored in the storage cabinet 21 of the battery cellar 2, it is desirable to replace a part of the used batteries 9 that have degraded to a certain extent (such as the used batteries 9 that have degraded to the extent of material recycling) with other used batteries that do not degrade to such extent. However, the replacement of the used batteries 9 requires labor and cost" and [0080] "in the comparative example, since the second battery and the third battery are replaced separately, the used batteries 9 are replaced twice in total. On the other hand, in the present embodiment, the second battery is also replaced at the time of replacing the third battery (early replacement). Thus, the used batteries 9 are replaced once, which makes it possible to reduce the number of times of replacing the used batteries 9 as compared with the comparative example. Therefore, it is possible to reduce labor and cost for replacing the used batteries" for calculating labor and cost of replacing batteries early by determining that the number of battery replacements will be reduced, resulting in a corresponding reduction in labor and cost that occurs during each battery replacement. Examiner is interpreting the labor and cost required for a replacement as "cost data" and the "temporal fluctuation in cost" is the change in total cost for each instance of going in to replace a battery(ies))
and the calculation unit calculates the economic effect by calculating a cost necessary for implementing the rebalancing, the rebuilding, or the diversion using at least one of the temporal- fluctuating labor cost described in the cost data and the temporal-fluctuating facility cost described in the cost data (see [0071] "regarding the plurality of used batteries stored in the storage cabinet 21 of the battery cellar 2, it is desirable to replace a part of the used batteries 9 that have degraded to a certain extent (such as the used batteries 9 that have degraded to the extent of material recycling) with other used batteries that do not degrade to such extent. However, the replacement of the used batteries 9 requires labor and cost" and [0080] "in the comparative example, since the second battery and the third battery are replaced separately, the used batteries 9 are replaced twice in total. On the other hand, in the present embodiment, the second battery is also replaced at the time of replacing the third battery (early replacement). Thus, the used batteries 9 are replaced once, which makes it possible to reduce the number of times of replacing the used batteries 9 as compared with the comparative example. Therefore, it is possible to reduce labor and cost for replacing the used batteries" for calculating labor and cost of replacing batteries early by determining that the number of battery replacements will be reduced, resulting in a corresponding reduction in labor and cost that occurs during each battery replacement. Examiner is interpreting the labor and cost required for a replacement as "cost data" and the "temporal fluctuation in cost" is the change in total cost for each instance of going in to replace a battery(ies). The prediction in cost change is that the number of times back-to-back battery replacements (i.e. needing to replace at time t1 and again at time t2) are eliminated as batteries that are predicted to fail in the next time period are replaced early)
Regarding claim 7, Izumi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Izumi further teaches:
wherein the calculation unit calculates the economic effect based on price data describing at least one of a temporal change in price of the battery and a prediction thereof (see [0050] "the used batteries 9 are ranked based on the result of the degradation evaluation test (more specifically, the measurement result of the full charge capacity). For example, as illustrated in FIG. 2, the used batteries 9 that may be rebuilt are ranked in the descending order of the full charge capacity into four ranks: rank S, rank A, rank B, and rank C. Thus, the trade price of each used battery 9 may be determined in association with the rank thereof, and the quality of each used battery 9 may be guaranteed in association with the rank thereof. Therefore, the used batteries 9 may be smoothly distributed from the battery cellar 2 to the market" for the market price of each battery being based on the degradation rank of the battery. See [0039] and [0103] for customer purchasing batteries from the cellar. See [0072], and Figs. 6-7 for the degradation of the batteries progressing over time, therefore reducing the battery's market price over time. See [0110] "The used batteries 9 may be selected in such a manner that the used batteries 9 with a lower demand rank will be preferentially charged or discharged, whereas the used battery 9 with a higher demand rank will not be charged or discharged as much as possible" for higher priced batteries being "saved" for sale by not being subject to the degrading charging/discharging balancing process that is performed on batteries with lower market value)
Regarding claim 8, Izumi teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above. Izumi further teaches:
wherein the calculation unit calculates the economic effect based on price data describing at least one of a temporal change in price of the battery and a prediction thereof (see [0050] "the used batteries 9 are ranked based on the result of the degradation evaluation test (more specifically, the measurement result of the full charge capacity). For example, as illustrated in FIG. 2, the used batteries 9 that may be rebuilt are ranked in the descending order of the full charge capacity into four ranks: rank S, rank A, rank B, and rank C. Thus, the trade price of each used battery 9 may be determined in association with the rank thereof, and the quality of each used battery 9 may be guaranteed in association with the rank thereof. Therefore, the used batteries 9 may be smoothly distributed from the battery cellar 2 to the market" for the market price of each battery being based on the degradation rank of the battery. See [0039] and [0103] for customer purchasing batteries from the cellar. See [0072], and Figs. 6-7 for the degradation of the batteries progressing over time, therefore reducing the battery's market price over time. See [0110] "The used batteries 9 may be selected in such a manner that the used batteries 9 with a lower demand rank will be preferentially charged or discharged, whereas the used battery 9 with a higher demand rank will not be charged or discharged as much as possible" for higher priced batteries being "saved" for sale by not being subject to the degrading charging/discharging balancing process that is performed on batteries with lower market value)
the price data describes at least one of a market price of a used battery, a market price of a battery material, a market price of a new battery, and a prediction of a temporal change thereof (see [0050] "the used batteries 9 are ranked based on the result of the degradation evaluation test (more specifically, the measurement result of the full charge capacity). For example, as illustrated in FIG. 2, the used batteries 9 that may be rebuilt are ranked in the descending order of the full charge capacity into four ranks: rank S, rank A, rank B, and rank C. Thus, the trade price of each used battery 9 may be determined in association with the rank thereof, and the quality of each used battery 9 may be guaranteed in association with the rank thereof. Therefore, the used batteries 9 may be smoothly distributed from the battery cellar 2 to the market")
and the calculation unit calculates the economic effect of each of the rebalancing, the rebuilding, and the diversion based on each of the prices described in the price data or a prediction of a temporal change thereof to determine which of the rebalancing, the rebuilding, and the diversion is to be implemented as the measure (see [0050] "the trade price of each used battery 9 may be determined in association with the rank thereof, and the quality of each used battery 9 may be guaranteed in association with the rank thereof. Therefore, the used batteries 9 may be smoothly distributed from the battery cellar 2 to the market. A used battery 9, the full charge capacity of which is less than a prescribed value, is ranked lower than rank C (represented as Re), and is transported to the material recycling" for determining that a diversion to material recycling is the measure to be implemented based on the rank of the battery (and therefore the price of the battery) being below a threshold. See [0050] "the used batteries 9 are ranked based on the result of the degradation evaluation test (more specifically, the measurement result of the full charge capacity). For example, as illustrated in FIG. 2, the used batteries 9 that may be rebuilt are ranked in the descending order of the full charge capacity into four ranks: rank S, rank A, rank B, and rank C. Thus, the trade price of each used battery 9 may be determined in association with the rank thereof, and the quality of each used battery 9 may be guaranteed in association with the rank thereof" for determining that rebuilding is the measure to be taken based on the degradation rank and corresponding price of the battery being above a threshold. See [0077]-[0079] for keeping batteries that are above a charge level (i.e. rank with corresponding price level from [0050]) CY and using them for rebalancing in [0105]-[0114])
Regarding claim 9, Izumi teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above. Izumi further teaches:
wherein the calculation unit calculates the economic effect based on price data describing at least one of a temporal change in price of the battery and a prediction thereof (see [0050] "the used batteries 9 are ranked based on the result of the degradation evaluation test (more specifically, the measurement result of the full charge capacity). For example, as illustrated in FIG. 2, the used batteries 9 that may be rebuilt are ranked in the descending order of the full charge capacity into four ranks: rank S, rank A, rank B, and rank C. Thus, the trade price of each used battery 9 may be determined in association with the rank thereof, and the quality of each used battery 9 may be guaranteed in association with the rank thereof. Therefore, the used batteries 9 may be smoothly distributed from the battery cellar 2 to the market" for the market price of each battery being based on the degradation rank of the battery. See [0039] and [0103] for customer purchasing batteries from the cellar. See [0072], and Figs. 6-7 for the degradation of the batteries progressing over time, therefore reducing the battery's market price over time. See [0110] "The used batteries 9 may be selected in such a manner that the used batteries 9 with a lower demand rank will be preferentially charged or discharged, whereas the used battery 9 with a higher demand rank will not be charged or discharged as much as possible" for higher priced batteries being "saved" for sale by not being subject to the degrading charging/discharging balancing process that is performed on batteries with lower market value)
the calculation unit selects the rebalancing as the measure when the economic effect of the rebalancing is equal to or greater than a fifth threshold (see [0077]-[0079] for keeping batteries that are above a charge level (i.e. rank with corresponding a price level from [0050]) CY and using them for rebalancing in [0105]-[0114]. These batteries can be eventually sold off to customers per [0103] after spending time rebalancing in the battery cellar)
and the calculation unit selects one of the rebuilding and the diversion as the measure when the economic effect of the rebalancing is less than the fifth threshold (see [0078] "the full charge capacity of the second battery is greater than the reference value CX but smaller than the reference value CY, and the full charge capacity of the third battery is smaller than the reference value CX. In this case, the third battery is determined to be a replacement-required battery as in the comparative example. In addition, according to the present embodiment, the second battery is also determined to be a replacement-required battery. This is because, since the full charge capacity of the second battery is greater than the reference value CX but smaller than the reference value CY, it is predicted that the full charge capacity of the second battery will become smaller than the reference value CX in the near future (for example, in the next degradation evaluation test)" for selecting rebuilding or diversion when the battery rank (and corresponding battery price) is below the CY threshold)
Regarding claim 10, Izumi teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 above. Izumi further teaches:
wherein the calculation unit selects the rebuilding as the measure when the economic effect of the rebuilding is equal to or greater than a sixth threshold (see [0049]-[0052] for determining if a battery is recyclable (rebuildable) or not based on a degradation test. See [0050] "the used batteries 9 that may be rebuilt are ranked in the descending order of the full charge capacity into four ranks: rank S, rank A, rank B, and rank C. Thus, the trade price of each used battery 9 may be determined in association with the rank thereof, and the quality of each used battery 9 may be guaranteed in association with the rank thereof" and [0051]-[0052] for the rebuilding of the batteries and subsequent sale to a customer. Examiner is interpreting Rank C health threshold/price threshold as the sixth threshold)
and the calculation unit selects the diversion as the measure when the economic effect of the rebuilding is less than the sixth threshold (see [0050] "A used battery 9, the full charge capacity of which is less than a prescribed value, is ranked lower than rank C (represented as Re), and is transported to the material recycling" for choosing diversion of the battery to material recycling when the health/price rank is below the Rank C threshold. See [0031] for the material recycling diversion not being used to rebuild battery packs)
Regarding claim 12, Izumi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Izumi further teaches:
wherein the calculation unit acquires SOC-OCV data describing a relationship between a state of charge of the battery and an open circuit voltage of the battery, SOC-charge resistance data describing a relationship between a state of charge of the battery and a charge resistance of the battery, and SOC-discharge resistance data describing a relationship between the state of charge of the battery and a discharge resistance of the battery (see [0098]-[0100], especially "The OCV calculation unit 72 calculates an OCV of the used battery 9 at the start of current integration and an OCV of the used battery 9 at the end of current integration. The OCV may be calculated according to the following expression (1), for example. OCV=VB−ΔVp−IB×R" and "The SOC change amount calculation unit 73 calculates the SOC change amount ΔSOC of the used battery 9 from the start of current integration to the end of current integration based on the two calculated OCVs. A characteristic curve (OCV-SOC curve) indicating a relationship between the OCV and the SOC is preliminarily stored in the SOC change amount calculation unit 73. Thus, the SOC change amount calculation unit 73 reads an SOC corresponding to the OCV at the start of current integration and an SOC corresponding to the OCV at the end of current integration by referring to the OCV-SOC curve, and calculates the difference between the two SOCs as ΔSOC. The SOC change amount calculation unit 73 outputs the calculated ΔSOC to the full charge capacity calculation unit 74" for the acquisition of SOC-OCV data. See [0097] "More specifically, in the case of an increase DR request (power increase request), the used battery 9 is charged so as to increase the power demand of the battery cellar 2, and the charge current is integrated during the charging. On the other hand, in the case of a decrease DR request (power decrease request), the used battery 9 is discharged so as to reduce the power demand of the battery cellar 2, and the discharge current is integrated during the discharging" and [0099] "The internal resistance R may be determined according to the relationship between the voltage VB and the current IB (the Ohm's law). When the charging/discharging of the used battery 9 is performed at a constant current, since the relationship between the current IB and the polarization voltage Vp may be measured in advance, the polarization voltage Vp may be determined from the current IB detected by the current sensor 212" for the acquisition of Resistance-SOC relationship data during both charging and discharging of the battery)
and the calculation unit estimates the state of health of the battery by estimating a temporal change in battery capacity of the battery by referring to the SOC-OCV data, the SOC-charge resistance data, and the SOC-discharge resistance data (see [0097] "The current integration unit 71 outputs the integrated current ΔAh to the full charge capacity calculation unit 74" and [0100] "The SOC change amount calculation unit 73 outputs the calculated ΔSOC to the full charge capacity calculation unit 74" for sending SOC-OCV and SOC-resistance data to a full charge capacity calculation unit. See [0101] "The full charge capacity calculation unit 74 calculates a full charge capacity C of the used battery 9 based on the ΔAh obtained from the current integration unit 71 and the ΔSOC obtained from the SOC change amount calculation unit 73. More specifically, the full charge capacity C of the used battery 9 may be calculated according to the following expression (2)... C=ΔAh/ΔSOC×100" for the calculation of the charge capacity based on the SOC OCV and resistance relationships)
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi in view of Fischer (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2011/0227414, hereafter known as Fischer).
Regarding claim 11, Izumi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. While Izumi considers degradation thresholds and battery market prices when determining how to handle degrading batteries, Izumi does not explicitly teach determining a measure to be implemented based on an environmental load generated by implementation of the measure to handle a degrading battery. Fischer teaches:
wherein the calculation unit determines a content to be implemented as the measure based on environmental load data in which an index expressing an environmental load generated along with implementation of the measure is described (see [0013] "Reduced battery life can also have significant environmental impacts, since often times base stations utilize lead-acid or similar batteries that may generate pollutants during charging and/or require special disposal. Due to the environmental impact, governments may levy taxes and fees against the operator of a base station on a per-battery basis and/or require special operational protocols (e.g., obtaining an official "death certificate" that verifies that an operator properly disposed of a dead battery). These regulations may further increase the operating expenses of base stations in proportion to the number of batteries consumed" for the disposal, diversion or replacement in the context of Izumi, or batteries carrying a tax/fee/regulation load based on the environmental impact of the replacement/disposal of a battery. In combination with Izumi, the replacement/diversion to recycling of a battery would carry this additional environmental load)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of incorporating environmental regulatory costs into the evaluation of battery disposal costs to the system of Izumi would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Fischer to the teaching of Izumi would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such incorporating environmental regulatory costs into the evaluation of battery disposal costs. Further, applying incorporating environmental regulatory costs into the evaluation of battery disposal costs to Izumi would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more accurate analysis of the economic impact of battery disposal. Particularly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the consideration of applicable regulations, including environmental fees associated with battery disposal, would be required to operate a battery cellar like the one described in the system of Izumi. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that considering the costs of/fees/taxes levied by an applicable government when disposing of batteries would allow the combination to consider a more complete, accurate picture of the costs and economic effects of the decisions on how to handle degraded batteries.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi in view of Inoue et al. (WIPO Publication No. 2022/024885, hereafter known as Inoue). Examiner notes that Inoue has a publication date outside of the 1 year grace period of the effectively filed date of the claimed invention and therefore qualifies as prior art despite sharing an Assignee with the present invention.
Regarding claim 13, Izumi teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 above. Izumi further teaches:
wherein the calculation unit acquires respective measured values of a voltage output by the battery, a current output by the battery, and a temperature of the battery (see [0059] "The voltage sensor 211 detects a voltage VB of the used battery 9, and outputs the detected voltage to the server 20. The current sensor 212 detects a current IB of the used battery 9, and outputs the detected current to the server 20. If the temperature is used in the degradation evaluation of the used battery 9, the storage cabinet 21 may further include a temperature sensor (not shown). Each sensor may be installed in each used battery 9" for acquiring the voltage, current, and temperature of the used batteries)
the calculation unit calculates a state of charge of the battery by time-integrating the current (see [0097] "The current integration unit 71, based on the current IB detected by the current sensor 212, calculates an integrated value (integrated current) ΔAh (unit: Ah) of a current charged to or discharged from the used battery 9 during a period from a time when the start condition of current integration is satisfied to a time when the end condition of current integration is satisfied" and [0100] for the calculation of the change in charge amount of the battery using integration of the current)
Izumi teaches that the OCV is calculated according to expression 1 following [0098] and teaches that calculation of the capacity retention rate as a measure of health of the battery according to expression (2) following [0101]. While Izumi further teaches in [0104] “The method of calculating the full charge capacity C is merely an example. Any method may be employed to calculate the full charge capacity C as long as the method uses the voltage VB and the current IB detected during the charging/discharging of the used battery 9”, Izumi does not explicitly teach obtaining the OCV by referring to SOC-OCV data and SOC-charge resistance data and correcting the charge resistance using temperature, estimating the voltage using the charge resistance and OCV, and calculating battery capacity by calculating an SOC when discharge is stopped using the SOC-discharge resistance data. Inoue teaches:
the calculation unit acquires the open circuit voltage of the battery and the charge resistance of the battery by referring to the SOC-OCV data and the SOC-charge resistance data using the state of charge, and corrects the charge resistance using the temperature (see [0097]-[0137] for generating an OCV-SOC relationship function when SOC information is included in communication data. See [0134] for calculating an OCV value based on SOC. See [0033]-[0038] for SOC-OCV and SOC-charging/discharging resistance tables. See [0167]-[0174] for calculating charge resistances based on SOC. Examiner notes that the charging/discharging tables are set according to a temperature sensitivity adjustment according to formula 1 between [0036]-[0037])
the calculation unit estimates the voltage using the charge resistance and the open circuit voltage (see Formula 3 and [0051]-[0056] for the estimation of the real voltage based on the charging resistance function as a function of SOC and the OCV that is also a function of the SOC)
and the calculation unit calculates the battery capacity by calculating an SOC when discharge is stopped using the SOC-discharge resistance data (see [0084] "Next, the current battery pack energy capacity is calculated in step S64. This is referred to as SOC (hereinafter referred to as SOC e (j)) when the cell j reaches the minimum voltage V m when each cell discharges at the temperature Temp and the constant discharge I d. Then, it is determined. Note that the SOC e can be obtained from the SOC u. Specifically, when each cell is discharged, SOC u (j, k) to 100 Q／ The SOC of each cell is obtained as Q (j, k). Here, Q is the discharge Ah capacity of the battery pack. Then, since the voltage of each cell is an OCV (SOC of cell j)-I × discharge resistance (temperature, SOC of cell j), an equation in which this is V m may be solved" for the calculation of the battery capacity by calculating an SOC when minimum voltage is reached using discharge resistance as a function of the SOC of the battery cell)
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the method for calculating the OCV and capacity of a battery as described in Inoue for the calculation method for calculating the OCV and battery capacity of a battery of Izumi.
As discussed above, Izumi explicitly states that any calculation method for calculating the capacity of the battery may be used as long as the voltage and current when charging/discharging the battery are used, as is the case in the calculation method of Inoue. Therefore, Izumi is explicitly considering the swapping of its disclosed calculation methods for others that arrive at the capacity of the battery. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Asai et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0118311) teaches the evaluation of a degradation degree of secondary batteries
Altaf et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2024/0001800) teaches determining battery packs that need replacement and determining a load distribution among packs
Negoita et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0194614) teaches using a graph neural network to assess the state of health of batteries
Yun et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2008/0103709) teaches SOC and SOH estimation of a battery based on temperature, current, and internal resistance
Yamauchi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,397,374) teaches the grading of batteries for reuse based on battery information and a threshold
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MORONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/M.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights