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 .
Claim Status
Claims 21 and 22 have been added. Claims 5, 9, and 19 are canceled.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-18, and 20-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a mental process because they perform calculations not previously performed in the prior art nor can they be reasonable performed by the human mind. Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides real-time analysis during work machine operation utilizing real-time scanning of the worksite.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. From the prior Office Action of record, claim(s) 1 and 15 recite the following (bolded) abstract limitations (or limitations analogous to):
“A method for dynamic characterization of an area to be worked by at least one of a first type of work machine comprising a work implement configured to distribute material and at least of a second type of work machine comprising a drum roller configured to compact the material, the method comprising:
generating an initial estimate for a volume of material needed to achieve a target value for the work area;
providing one or more of the work machines with at least one sensor and further during traverse of the work area by a respective work machine, for each of one or more portions of a work area:
collecting first data for the respective portion of the work area prior to traverse of the respective portion by the work machine via at least a first sensor external to or onboard the work machine;
collecting second data for the respective portion of the work area upon traverse of the respective portion by the work machine via at least a second sensor onboard the work machine;
determining one or more characteristic values of a ground material in the respective portion of the work area based on at least a comparison of the first data and corresponding second data, wherein the one or more characteristic values of the ground material include at least a light compaction factor or a heavy compaction factor dependent on the type of work machine;
generating an updated estimate in real time of the volume of material needed to achieve a target value for the work area, based on at least the compaction factor and a type of the compaction factor;
estimating a volume of loose fill material added to the work area per load via one or more transport vehicles independent of the work machine; and
predicting a number of transport vehicle loads required to achieve the target value for the work area.”
The bolded limitations can be done entirely manually by a human using pen and paper, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, such as, determining values based on comparing data, estimating a volume of material needed and added, then predicting a number of vehicle loads required. Wherein these steps can be done by a human using pen and paper in real time as they pertain to data comparison, estimation based on the data comparison, and then a prediction based on the estimation. Additionally, it may even be interpreted that the determination of a characteristic value is a mere mathematical concept based on the methods utilized. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit has also indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees to the Applicant’s arguments that the limitations are an enhancement due to the inclusion of using equipment such as cameras, LiDAR, and sensors, as these are additional elements that are recited at amount to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the exception using one or more generic components. Even if the claims did recite that the generic sensors, as currently claimed, were cameras and/or LiDAR, the functions are recited at a high-level of generality that they still amount to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or amount to extra-solution data gathering that is routine and conventional in the art per the case law provided in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (see rejection below). Further more the characterization of specific types of sensors could further amount to a field of use or technical environment in which the abstract concept is implemented, which would not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea of significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Next, Applicant argues that the collection of sensor data during compaction cannot be replicated mentally or with a pen and paper.
In the prior Office Action of record, the collecting of the first data and collecting of the second data via at least a first sensor and a second sensor, respectively, recites pre-solution data gathering which is an extra-solution activity and not a mental process.
Applicant argues that the invention is subject matter eligible because “the system is "capable of measuring any number of surface characteristics as are conventionally known (e.g., bank yardage, swell factor, compaction factor), as well as any number of derivative characteristics therefrom, but the calculations may be made substantially in real-time upon traversal of the ground when utilizing the multiple surface scan inputs as disclosed herein and further dynamically updating estimates based on for example current scan results as opposed to predicted scan results”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As established above, a mental process can be done in real-time by a human. The claims currently recite sensor data at a high level of generality and amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity and the calculations of such data are also recited at a high-level of generality that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be done entirely manually by a human using pen and paper. In addition, as per MPEP 2106, examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In regards to Applicant’s arguments of claims 2, 4, 16, and 18 of the work machine itself acting as a sensing element for the ground materials, Examiner notes that as recited, the claims recite the generic function of data collection, a human is capable of ascertaining said information (i.e. elevation information), and the collection of information from sensors amounts to extra solution activity (the collection of information utilized in the abstract analysis). In addition, as indicated above, examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, the claims are newly amended and were not addressed in the prior Office Action of record. Claims 21 and 22 will be discussed in the detailed rejection below.
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 1-4, 6-8, 10-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-18, and 20 are directed to a method and a system, and therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
If the claims recite at least one statutory category of invention, the claims require further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception of invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 15 recite the following (bolded) abstract limitations (or limitations analogous to):
“A method for dynamic characterization of an area to be worked by at least one of a first type of work machine comprising a work implement configured to distribute material and at least of a second type of work machine comprising a drum roller configured to compact the material, the method comprising:
generating an initial estimate for a volume of material needed to achieve a target value for the work area;
providing one or more of the work machines with at least one sensor and further during traverse of the work area by a respective work machine, for each of one or more portions of a work area:
collecting first data for the respective portion of the work area prior to traverse of the respective portion by the work machine via at least a first sensor external to or onboard the work machine;
collecting second data for the respective portion of the work area upon traverse of the respective portion by the work machine via at least a second sensor onboard the work machine;
determining one or more characteristic values of a ground material in the respective portion of the work area based on at least a comparison of the first data and corresponding second data, wherein the one or more characteristic values of the ground material include at least a light compaction factor or a heavy compaction factor dependent on the type of work machine;
generating an updated estimate in real time of the volume of material needed to achieve a target value for the work area, based on at least the compaction factor and a type of the compaction factor;
estimating a volume of loose fill material added to the work area per load via one or more transport vehicles independent of the work machine; and
predicting a number of transport vehicle loads required to achieve the target value for the work area.”
Wherein the claimed limitation are functions / processes that can be done entirely manually by a human using pen and paper, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, in the mind, determining values based on comparing data, estimating a volume of material needed and added, then predicting a number of vehicle loads required.
If the claims recite a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claims require further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Claim(s) 1 and 15 additionally the following (underlined) additional elements (or limitations analogous to):
“A method for dynamic characterization of an area to be worked by at least one of a first type of work machine comprising a work implement configured to distribute material and at least of a second type of work machine comprising a drum roller configured to compact the material, the method comprising:
generating an initial estimate for a volume of material needed to achieve a target value for the work area;
providing one or more of the work machines with at least one sensor and further during traverse of the work area by a respective work machine, for each of one or more portions of a work area:
collecting first data for the respective portion of the work area prior to traverse of the respective portion by the work machine via at least a first sensor external to or onboard the work machine;
collecting second data for the respective portion of the work area upon traverse of the respective portion by the work machine via at least a second sensor onboard the work machine;
determining one or more characteristic values of a ground material in the respective portion of the work area based on at least a comparison of the first data and corresponding second data, wherein the one or more characteristic values of the ground material include at least a light compaction factor or a heavy compaction factor dependent on the type of work machine;
generating an updated estimate in real time of the volume of material needed to achieve a target value for the work area, based on at least the compaction factor and a type of the compaction factor;
estimating a volume of loose fill material added to the work area per load via one or more transport vehicles independent of the work machine; and
predicting a number of transport vehicle loads required to achieve the target value for the work area”
Claim 15 additionally recites:
“A system for dynamic characterization of an area to be by at least one of a first type of work machine comprising a work implement configured to distribute material and at least one of a second type of work machine comprising a drum roller configured to compact the material, the system comprising:
for each of one or more of the work machines, at least a first sensor external to or onboard the work machine and configured to collect first data, and at least a second sensor onboard the work machine and configured to collect second data;
a controller functionally linked to the at least a first sensor and the at least a second sensor and configured to for each of one or more portions of a work area:”
In regards to the collecting the first data and collecting the second data via at least a first sensor and a second sensor, respectively, amounts to extra-solution activity, pre-solution data gathering in this case (see MPEP 2105.05(g)).
The claimed system and controller are additional elements that individually and in combination fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely apply the abstract idea to one or more generic computing components (aka “apply it”; see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The functions of these additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g. receiving, processing, transmitting data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the exception using one or more generic components.
The claimed work vehicle with a work implement and of a second type of work machine comprising a drum roller, respectively, is merely a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claims are directed to the recited judicial exception, and require further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
With respect to the previously identified extra-solution activity, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). In addition, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
Claim 15 additionally recites a system and a controller, which are recited at such a high level of generality that it amounts to no more than additional elements of instructions to apply an exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Next, work vehicle with a work implement and of a second type of work machine comprising a drum roller are directed to a judicial exception and cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use" Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claims 2-3, 6, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17 and 20-22 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations (e.g. further characterizing the data within the system and determinations made with the utilization thereof). These claims also act to further characterize the types of sensors used for data collection (aforementioned extra-solution activity) and the generation of output signals (additional extra-solution activity). The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a) (see, for example, [0008], [0054], [0061]).For the reasons described above with respect to claims 1 and 15, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 4 and 18 additionally recites (or limitations analogous to):
“...
collecting position data via at least a third sensor onboard the work machine, and
determining a current elevation of the work machine relative to one or more of an elevation of the respective portion of the work area prior to traverse thereof and an elevation of the respective portion of the work area upon traverse thereof,
wherein the one or more characteristic values of the ground material in the work area are further determined based on the current elevation of the work machine relative to the one or more of an elevation of the respective portion of the work area prior to traverse thereof and an elevation of the respective portion of the work area upon traverse thereof.”
Wherein the collection of data is extra-solution activity, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. In regards to determining a current elevation and further determining an elevation of a work area, the functions / processes that can be done entirely manually by a human using pen and paper, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, observing the surroundings and determining elevation.
Claim 7-8 and 20 additionally recites (or limitations analogous to):
“...
estimating a compacted volume of the loose fill material, and updating at least one of the one or more characteristic values based on the second data upon traversal by the work machine of the respective portion of the work area comprising the loose fill material.”
Wherein estimating is a functions / process that can be done entirely manually by a human using pen and paper, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the human mind.
Claim 12 additionally recites:
“The method of claim 1, further comprising:
accessing a map comprising three-dimensional data corresponding to at least a portion of the area to be worked;
predicting one or more desired discharge locations in the at least a portion of the area to be worked, based at least in part on the estimated volume of material added to the work area per transport vehicle load and the predicted number of transport vehicle loads required to achieve the target value for the work area; and
generating output signals corresponding to the predicted one or more desired discharge locations to at least one transport vehicle.”
Wherein generating output signals is an extra-solution activity, as generically transmitting and retrieving information is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; (MPEP 2106.05(b)). In regards to accessing and predicting functions, as recited, these are process that can be done entirely manually by a human using pen and paper, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, in the mind, accessing map data and predicting and generating paths to a location.
Claims 21 and 22 additionally recites (or limitations analogous to):
“...
wherein determining the one or more characteristic values is further based on a current elevation of the work machine when the work machine traverses the respective portion of the work area; and
wherein the current elevation is determined at least in part using body kinematics of the work machine”.
Wherein determining using body kinematics is a function / process that can be done entirely manually by a human using pen and paper, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the human mind and/or are mathematical concepts, which are forms of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Therefore, claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10-18, and 20-22 are ineligible under 35 USC § 101.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-18, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 1, Wang et al. (20200293059; hereinafter Wang, already of record) in view of Ready-Campbell et al. (2020003249; hereinafter Ready, already of record) teaches a method for dynamic characterization of an area to be worked by at least one of a first type of work machine comprising a work implement configured to distribute material and at least of a second type of work machine comprising a drum roller configured to compact the material (Wang: Abstract), the method comprising:
generating an initial estimate for a volume of material needed to achieve a target value for the work area (Wang: “initial spreading parameters may be generated using survey data collected by survey stations, survey poles, aerial survey units, or one or more of the work vehicles” ¶ 30, “The paths 506 of the task 502 may be generated based at least in part on the physical characteristics (e.g., volume, shape, contour profile, and/or type of material) of the material pile 504 and on defined spreading parameters” ¶ 52);
providing one or more of the work machines with at least one sensor and further during traverse of the work area by a respective work machine, for each of one or more portions of a work area (Wang: “the vehicles may include various sensors, positioning units, and/or the angle acquisition units. The various sensors, positioning units, and/or the angle acquisition units may be utilized to collect data associated with the site prior to starting an operation or as the vehicles perform the operations” ¶ 33):
collecting first data for the respective portion of the work area prior to traverse of the respective portion by the work machine via at least a first sensor external to or onboard the work machine (Wang: Fig. 3 Element 304, Fig. 5, “In the current example, the vehicle 300 may have a field of view 304 associated with the area that the vehicle 300 may capture image data from. In the current example, the field of view 304 is forward of the vehicle 300” ¶ 48);
collecting second data for the respective portion of the work area upon traverse of the respective portion by the work machine via at least a second sensor onboard the work machine (Wang: Fig. 4 Elements 408A, 408B, Fig. 5, “As each vehicle 104 completes a path or pass over the site, the vehicle 104 may collect result or terrain data” ¶ 43, “the field of view 304 may include zones, such as forward, backwards, left, and right of the vehicle 300” ¶ 48, see also ¶ 34, 50);
determining one or more characteristic values of a ground material in the respective portion of the work area (Wang: “As each vehicle 104 completes a path or pass over the site, the vehicle 104 may collect result or terrain data” ¶ 43) based on at least a comparison of the first data and corresponding second data (Wang: “the stereo vision system 306 may allow the vehicle 300 to identify and locate material pile 302 in the physical space by comparing relative positions of the material pile 302 within the captured scene from two vantage points” ¶ 49, “the vehicle 706 may record or log the finish surface data using on board sensors (such as IMUs) or image capture devices. After each finishing pass, the vehicle 706 may compare the log of the finish surface to the spreading height profile 708 to determine if another finishing pass is required” ¶ 60, see also ¶ 50), wherein the one or more characteristic values of the ground material include at least a light compaction factor or a heavy compaction factor dependent on the type of work machine;
generating an updated estimate in real time of the volume of material needed to achieve a target value for the work area (Wang: “the inference system may generate the paths 604 and 606 based on the defined spreading parameters (e.g., height/depth of material and the area to cover)” ¶ 56, see also ¶ 53, 62, 72), based on at least the compaction factor and a type of the compaction factor;
estimating a volume of loose fill material added to the work area per load via one or more transport vehicles independent of the work machine (Wang: “the vehicle may alternate regions within a site such that the rock truck may deliver a pile of material to a first region while the vehicle is spreading on a second region” ¶ 110, “once the vehicle moves back to the first region the vehicle may capture image data and analyze the image data to identify the position or coordinate of the material pile and the characteristics of the material pile (e.g., contour profile and volume)” ¶ 111); and
predicting a number of transport vehicle loads required to achieve the target value for the work area (Wang: “the tasks may be scheduled ... the schedule may be based on additional information such as the delivery of each OOI” ¶ 103, “If all of the tasks are not complete, the process 1800 returns to 1808 or 1810 and additional tasks may be scheduled and/or assigned” ¶ 105).
While Wang remains silent regarding a compaction factor in a similar field of endeavor, Ready teaches the claim limitation of a compaction factor (Ready: “The target compaction or current compaction may be determined based on one or more of the following properties: a measurement of the density of earth prior to the execution of a compaction routine, the density of earth after the execution of a compaction routine, a measurement of the soil cohesion, and a measurement of the particles size of earth within the tool used to fill a sink” ¶ 104, see also ¶ 102, 103, 106). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the calculation system of Wang so that it also includes the element of a compaction factory, as taught by Ready, in order to improve material requirement predictions (Ready: ¶ 5, 100, 106).
However, Wang in view of Ready teaches of a compaction factor, Wang in view of Ready fail to teach wherein the one or more characteristic values of the ground material include at least a light compaction factor or a heavy compaction factor dependent on the type of work machine and generating an updated estimate in real time of the volume of material based on at least the compaction factor and a type of the compaction factor.
Further search and consideration shows that Anderegg et al. (20090126953; hereinafter Anderegg, already of record) teaches of compaction factors of multiple work machines, see paragraphs 75, 76, and 77, however, Anderegg fails to teach of a light compaction factor or a heavy compaction factor that is dependent on the work machine.
Independent claim 15 recites analogous limitations to claim 1 and would be allowable for the reasonings outlined above.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-14, 16-18, and 20-22 are dependent on independent claims 1 and 15 and would be allowable for the reasonings outlined above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bando et al. (20160018531) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of work machines.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights