DETAILED ACTION
Receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed 12/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 7 have been amended.
Claims 1 and 7 are pending.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although
the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to
the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply
as well. Examiner may also include cited interpretations encompassed within parenthesis, e.g. (Examiner’s interpretation), for clarity. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Specification Objections:
Acknowledgement is made of amended invention title. Objection to title of the invention is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Acknowledgement is made of amended independent claims 1 and 7. Applicant’s arguments have been considered, however significant amendments to claims warrant new grounds of rejection. Rejections to claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are maintained.
Applicant argues [Pg.1 P.4] that independent claims 1 and 7, as amended, “are not directed to an abstract idea and, even if so alleged, include an inventive concept amounting to significantly more than an abstract idea.” Applicant cites [Pg.2 Ln.4-5] “a
structure, a plurality of sensors, and a memory, but also recites the various directions
relative to the structure and what the processor is configured to perform in detail that
amounts to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception and integrates the
alleged abstract idea into a practical application.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The steps of the subject matter eligibility analysis for products and processes that are to be used during examination for evaluating whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter is the following:
Step 1: Determine if the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed towards a system, therefore falls within the statutory category of a machine. Claim 7 is directed towards a method, therefore falls within the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A: Determine if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea. Independent claims 1 and 7 are directed towards an abstract idea (Mental Processes performed on a computer and/or Mathematical Concepts) – see 35 USC §101 analysis below.
Step 2B: Determine if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As shown in 35 USC §101 analysis section below, the additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (pre solution, mere data gathering). The additional claim limitations identified (e.g. Claim 1) can be summarized as receiving data (acquiring inclination angles from sensors), which amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).
These additional limitations must be considered individually and with the claim as a whole to determine if it integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim, as a whole, is directed towards a system comprising of a structure, sensors, a memory, and a processor. The system receives and processes data, but there are no particular physical elements (e.g. a structure with sensors) or steps (e.g. specifying first/second/plane directions) that add a meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a practical application beyond receiving and processing data.
Additionally, per MPEP 2106.05(d), another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. The courts have recognized the following pertinent computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory. Since the additional elements of receiving data are directed towards Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (pre solution, mere data gathering) and have been determined to be well understood, routine, conventional activity per MPEP 2106.05(d), claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Thus, Applicant’s arguments not persuasive.
Applicant also argues [Pg.2 Ln.29] “the features performed by the processor should be categorized as either (1) Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b), or (2) Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e)”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Per MPEP 2106.05(b), “It is noted that while the application of a judicial exception by or with a particular machine is an important clue, it is not a stand-alone test for eligibility. All claims must be evaluated for eligibility using the two-part test from Alice/Mayo” – see Claim Rejections – 35 USC 101 section below for detailed analysis. Additionally, per MPEP 2106.05(b), “It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine.”
Per Applicant’s argument referencing MPEP 2106.05(e), as previously noted above and within Claim Rejections – 35 USC 101 section below, independent claims 1 and 7 recite no particular elements or steps that add a meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea (Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts) into a practical application beyond receiving and processing data.
Thus, Applicant’s arguments not persuasive.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims. Applicant’s arguments have been considered, however significant amendments to claims warrant new grounds of rejection. See Muramoto in view of Hashimoto in view of Sekiya, in Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103 section below. Rejections to claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained.
In response to applicant’s argument [Pg.5 Ln.1] that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to previously cited art have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court
has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04);
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a system, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a machine.
Claim 7 is directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of process.
Step 2A, Prong I:
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims are directed towards Mental Processes performed on a computer and/or Mathematical Concepts, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of:
a memory configured to store a program; and a processor configured to
execute the program so as to determine a displacement of the structure from the reference orientation by: (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. Specifically, the limitation is directed towards Mental Processes performed on a generic computer, since the human mind can reasonably “determine” a displacement of a structure with/without the aid of pen/paper.
estimating, with use of the acquired inclination angles, a relationship
between distance from the reference position in the first direction and displacement of the structure from the reference orientation in the reference plane at a position separated from the reference position by the distance, for each of the plurality of different times; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) and/or mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) For instance, the human mind can reasonably, with/without the aid of pen/paper, estimate (i.e. mathematical concept) a relationship (i.e. mathematical relationship) between position distances given the limitation criteria.)
specifying the displacement of the structure from the reference orientation
at a specified arbitrary position in the first direction at a specified time with use of the estimated relationship for each of the plurality of different times; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) and/or mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) For instance, the human mind can reasonably, with/without the aid of pen/paper, specify/calculate time-series values of displacement of the structure using the estimated relationships previously established.)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
As per claim 1, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Insignificant Extra-solution Activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
acquiring inclination angles of the structure relative to the first direction in
the reference plane, the inclination angles being measured by the plurality of sensors at each of a plurality of different times at the plurality of measurement positions; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. Acquiring inclination angles from sensors is interpreted as mere data gathering, pre-solution activity.)
These additional limitations must be considered individually and with the claim as a whole to determine if it integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim, as a whole, is directed towards a system comprising of a structure, sensors, a memory, and a processor. The system receives and processes data, but there are no particular physical elements (e.g. a structure with sensors) or steps (e.g. specifying first/second/plane directions) that add a meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a practical application beyond receiving and processing data.
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 when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B:
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Insignificant Extra Solution Activity – mere data gathering.
Additionally, per MPEP 2106.05(d), another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. The courts have recognized the following pertinent computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, and iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claim 7 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale with failure to add significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore claim 7 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham V. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that
are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are
summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Muramoto et al. JP Doc. No. (translated copy) JP 2009192504 A (hereinafter referred to as “Muramoto”), in view of Hashimoto et al. JP Doc. No. (Translated Copy) JP 3783061 B1 (hereinafter referred to as “Hashimoto”), in view of Sekiya, Hidehiko, Kentaro Kimura, and Chitoshi Miki. "Technique for determining bridge displacement response using MEMS accelerometers." Sensors 16, no. 2 (2016): 257. (hereinafter referred to as “Sekiya”).
Regarding claim 1, Muramoto discloses, A system comprising a processor,
A system comprising: a structure having one or more fixed points wherein:
a plurality of sensors arranged at a plurality of measurement positions, (“A system for estimating a structural displacement, comprising: a plurality of measuring units for measuring a measurement inclination angle at a measurement point of the supported body, which are installed along the supported body at intervals in a length direction of the supported body.” Muramoto [P.0012])
a memory configured to store a program; and a processor configured to execute the program so as to determine a displacement of the structure from the reference orientation by: (“The computer 7 further includes an arithmetic unit 7B that
performs arithmetic processing using the tilt angle values, parameters, functions, and the like stored in the storage device 7A based on a program stored in advance in a ROM (Read Only Memory) 7D, and a storage device.” Muramoto [P.0059])
specifying the displacement of the structure from the reference orientation at a specified arbitrary position in the first direction at a specified time with use of the estimated relationship for each of the plurality of different times; (“the function of deflection (displacement) is obtained when the function of the deflection angle (tilt angle) of a member such as a beam or rigid frame (e.g. structure) is integrated at an arbitrary position” Muramoto [Pg.4 P.2]. Function of the deflection angle is interpreted to encompass a plurality of different times because “By installing the inclinometer directly or indirectly on the supported body, the measurement point of the inclination angle is fixed, and the position value of the coordinate measurement point is determined [ ] although the inclination angle value of the coordinate measurement point changes, it is obtained at predetermined (i.e. at a specified time) intervals in time (i.e. plurality of different times), that is, it is determined every time when the inclination angle value is obtained, so the coordinate measurement point is also determined every time.” Muramoto [Pg.3 P.5]. Also, the function of displacement is interpreted to be from the reference orientation at a specified arbitrary position in the first direction because “The position in the length direction of the point on the supported body is the position on the horizontal axis when the point on the supported body is projected on the horizontal axis, and the position value representing this position is on the horizontal axis. This is expressed by the distance from the reference point to the point and the direction (sign) of the point with respect to the reference point when an arbitrary reference point and a positive direction are given.” Muramoto [Pg.3 P.4]
Muramoto fails to specifically disclose a lengthwise direction in a reference orientation of a structure is a first direction; a specified direction perpendicular to the first direction is a second direction, a plane that includes the first direction and the second direction is a reference plane, the plurality of measurement positions being at different distances from a reference position in the first direction, acquiring inclination angles of the structure relative to the first direction in the reference plane, the inclination angles being measured by the plurality of sensors at each of a plurality of different times at the plurality of measurement positions and estimating, with use of the acquired inclination angles, a relationship between distance from the reference position in the first direction and displacement of the structure from the reference orientation in the reference plane at a position separated from the reference position by the distance, for each of the plurality of different times.
However, Hashimoto discloses a lengthwise direction in a reference orientation of a structure is a first direction (“As shown in FIG. 1, the acceleration detector is arranged so that two acceleration sensitive axes 1, 2 or 3, 4 cross each other in the same plane, and is attached to a rigid body (i.e. a structure) at positions P and Q (i.e. fixed points) which are translated by a distance L in the plane (i.e. lengthwise direction) including the acceleration sensitive axes (i.e. reference orientation).” Hashimoto [P.0013])
a specified direction perpendicular to the first direction is a second direction, and (“The speed detection axes in two directions are defined as the X-axis and the Y-axis, respectively.” Hashimoto [P.0014]. Examiner interprets the X and Y axis to be perpendicular.)
a plane that includes the first direction and the second direction is a reference plane, (“A plane that is parallel to the X-axis and Y-axis and that includes the mounting axis 6 is called a mounting plane (i.e. reference plane).” Hashimoto [P.0013])
the plurality of measurement positions being at different distances from a reference position in the first direction; (“An inclination angle is known by performing two-stage time differentiation of an inclination angle from acceleration components in four directions in a vertical plane and geometrical relations between them, and digitally integrating two-stage time differential values of an inclination angle found from measurement values... values of inclination angles at respective sample points (i.e. plurality of measurement positions)” Hashimoto [Abstract])
acquiring inclination angles of the structure relative to the first direction in the reference plane, (“The horizontal acceleration and vertical acceleration are quantities that can be calculated from the observed output values of each acceleration detection axis and the inclination angle. The inclination angle can be found by integrating equation (7), which is determined by the output values of the acceleration detection axes, with respect to time,” Hashimoto [P.0020])
the inclination angles being measured by the plurality of sensors at each of a plurality of different times at the plurality of measurement positions, (“An inclination angle is known by performing two-stage time differentiation of an inclination angle from acceleration components (i.e. plurality of sensors) in four directions in a vertical plane and geometrical relations between them, and digitally integrating two-stage time differential values (i.e. plurality of different times) of an inclination angle found from measurement values... values of inclination angles at respective sample points (i.e. plurality of measurement positions)” Hashimoto [Abstract])
Muramoto and Hashimoto are analogous art as they both relate to detecting object displacement utilizing accelerometers or inclinometers. Muramoto teaches a structure displacement estimation system and method, and Hashimoto teaches a detection method for inclination angle and translational acceleration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muramoto’s displacement system/method to incorporate the inclination angle teachings of Hashimoto, in order to “simultaneously detect an inclination angle of an object and translational acceleration acting on the object without errors” Hashimoto [Abstract].
Although, the Muramoto-Hashimoto combination fails to specifically disclose estimating, with use of the acquired inclination angles, a relationship between distance from the reference position in the first direction and displacement of the structure from the reference orientation in the reference plane at a position separated from the reference position by the distance, for each of the plurality of different times.
However, Sekiya discloses estimating, with use of the acquired inclination angles, a relationship between distance from the reference position in the first direction and displacement of the structure from the reference orientation in the reference plane at a position separated from the reference position by the distance, for each of the plurality of different times; (“Figure 5 shows the displacement measured using the contact displacement gauge for a duration of 4s at the longitudinal center of the lower flange of the main girder (G3) of the test bridge. Figure 5 shows the typical deflection (i.e. inclination angles) due to the passage of a vehicle, and the vehicle passing time which depends on the span of the bridge and the vehicle speed, was approximately 2.2s. Therefore, the frequency of the deflection due to the vehicle weight was approximately 0.5Hz. In this case, as the length of bridge is 34.55m, the speed of the vehicle was estimated to be 56.5 km/h.” Sekiya [Pg.6]. Per Applicant disclosure within Specification, examiner interprets “deflection” to include “inclination angles” Spec. [P.0045])
Sekiya is analogous art as it relates to bridge displacement utilizing accelerometers. Sekiya proposes “a method for determining the displacement of a bridge in service from its acceleration based on its free vibration” [Abstract]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included Sekiya’s disclosure with the Muramoto-Hashimoto combination, since “with regard to fatigue damage in steel bridges (e.g. structure), it is important to determine the displacement response of the entire bridge under a live load as well as that of each member. Knowing the displacement response enables the identification of dynamic deformations that can cause stresses and ultimately lead to damage and thus also allows the undertaking of appropriate countermeasures.” Sekiya [Abstract].
The method of independent claim 7 recites substantially the same subject matter as independent claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272-1036. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/ANTHONY CHAVEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2187 /RENEE D CHAVEZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights