DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed on 09/26/2025. Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 have been amended. Claims 2 and 3 have been cancelled. No new claims have been added. Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are currently 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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended claims to incorporate new features not previously claimed. Sufficient support was found in the specification based on the cited paragraphs provided by the applicant. The cited sections of the specification reasonably demonstrate that, at the time of the filing of the invention, the applicant had possession of the claimed matter.
Response to Arguments
Specification
Applicant has amended the abstract and specification in response to the informalities noted on the previous action. The amendments to the abstract and specification sufficiently overcome the noted objections in the prior office action. Accordingly, the objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Applicant has amended Claim 5 in response to the informality noted on the previous action to include the definition of the p_4 value. The amendment sufficiently resolves the previously noted objection in the prior office action. Accordingly, the objection to claim 5 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
Applicant has amended the claims1 and 4-7, as well as cancelled claims 2 and 3, in response to the previously noted rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Examiner has reviewed the amendments and agrees that the amendments sufficiently overcome the previously set forth rejections. Accordingly, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant has amended independent claim 1 in response to the previously set-forth rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and argues that the current form of the claim is patent-eligible.
Applicant agrees that the claim does in fact recite a mental process as a judicial exception under step 2A prong 1 and has amended the claim to include “performing, based on the near-seabed video positioning, underwater positioning of a deep-sea camera equipment, and performing deep-sea prospecting to obtain mineral resources” and argues that the addition of this claim element integrates the judicial exception into a practical application because allegedly the limitation uses the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The newly-added additional element recites only the idea of a solution or outcome but fails to recite details of how the solution to the problem is accomplished. That is to say that performing tasks based on the predicted values obtained from the mental process in an unspecified way does not sufficiently demonstrate a particular solution to a noted problem. The recitation of “performing deep-sea prospecting to obtain mineral resources” appears to be simply the idea of an outcome with an unspecified link between the predicted value obtained from the mental process.
Applicant further argues that the specification of the application recites an improvement to the technical field of seabed mineral resource exploration. Resource exploration appears to remain largely unchanged by the claimed invention and the inventive concept appears to be completely encompassed by the abstract idea itself. Per MPEP 2106.05(a), “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.” and “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology”. Any purported improvement to the technological field flows as a direct consequence to the improvement of the prediction of location data, which is obtained completely as a series of steps which define a mental process.
Accordingly, because of the rationale provided in this response as well as the updated rejection of this action, the claims remain rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant has amended the claims to particularly add features A and B as detailed in the remarks document received on 09/26/2025. Feature A recites: taking bathymetric data integrated with the processed ultra-short baseline positioning data as a second water depth value obtained by a conductivity-temperature-depth sensor, and corresponding the processed ultra-short baseline positioning data to the second water depth value in a one-to-one manner according to time to obtain recombined ultra-short baseline positioning data and and feature B) recites: using a function of extracting value to point in a toolbox of a geographic information to extract an underwater vehicle water depth value from AUV sounding data according to the recombined ultra-short baseline positioning data, performing cross-section comparative analysis on the AUV water depth value and the second water depth value formed by the recombined ultra-short baseline positioning data to eliminate points with an abnormal trend, letting the trend of keeping the recombined ultra-short baseline positioning data consistent with a topography of AUV sounding data. Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not disclose the entirety of the features and provides rationale as to the lacking limitations, particularly noting the correspondence of data in a one-to-one manner according to time and performing cross-section comparative analysis on the AUV water depth value and the second water depth value.
Examiner agrees that the previously referenced prior art of record did not appear to disclose the entirety of the limitations to include the newly added matter of features A and B which were not included in previous claims. A comprehensive prior art search was conducted over the claims to include the new features. Examiner was unable to find prior art that obviously disclosed or suggested taking bathymetric data integrated with the processed ultra-short baseline positioning data as a second water depth value obtained by a conductivity-temperature-depth sensor, and corresponding the processed ultra-short baseline positioning data to the second water depth value in a one-to-one manner according to time to obtain recombined ultra-short baseline positioning data and. Accordingly, the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been withdrawn and the claim has been found allowable over the prior art. By incorporation of the independent claim, the dependent claims are likewise allowable over the prior art.
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, 5, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following section follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) for analyzing subject matter eligibility:
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG analysis 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).
Step 2A Prong 1 - Judicial exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Step 2a Prong 2 - Integration into a practical application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step 2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B - Significantly More:
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B- Significantly More.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities are further evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II).
Independent Claims:
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims 4-7 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
establishing a four-dimensional elimination model by using time, longitude, latitude and water depth information in the ultra-short baseline positioning data from a perspective of time and space sequence; which can reasonably be read to entail using time, longitude, latitude, and water depth data to create a data model. A human being is capable of combining sources of information to create a representative data model. This can be done leveraging a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim leverages a generic computer to execute the claimed process. The execution of a mental process on a generic computer still amounts to the recitation of a mental process . Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
judging whether the first water depth value is abnormal according to the four-dimensional elimination model; eliminating the ultra-short baseline positioning data with the abnormal first water depth value if abnormal: and otherwise retaining the ultra-short baseline positioning data, wherein the method for judging abnormality of the first water depth value is to arrange the ultra-short baseline positioning data of a survey line in time sequence in a direction of the first water depth value of the four-dimensional elimination model to obtain an abnormal water depth point, and to eliminate the ultra-short baseline positioning data of the abnormal water depth point; which can reasonably be read to entail judging data values in comparison to the representative data model and evaluating data points for abnormality against a defined threshold. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Furthermore, the specification supports this determination in that the process is a mental process because the specification explicitly mentions that the judgment is performed by a human (see Instant Specification [0068]). Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
establishing a buffer with a range of 0.3% of the average length of each measuring cable along the direction where the ultra-short baseline positioning data is aggregated; which can reasonably be read to entail calculating the average length of measuring cables and applying a percentage to the calculated length to determine a buffer range. This is the recitation of a mathematical calculation and mathematical relationship. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. Furthermore, this calculation can be performed in the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
eliminating the ultra-short baseline positioning data outside the buffer to obtain processed ultrashort baseline positioning data; which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating data with respect to the buffer. This evaluation can be performed practically in the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
and corresponding the processed ultra-short baseline positioning data to the second water depth value in a one-to-one manner according to time to obtain recombined ultra-short baseline positioning data; which can reasonably be read to entail correlating two datasets together by evaluating the datasets to make a judgement as to which datapoints correspond so as to form a combined dataset. This judgement and evaluation can be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
to extract an Underwater Vehicle (AUV) water depth value from AUV sounding data according to the recombined ultra-short baseline positioning data, performing cross-section comparative analysis on the AUV water depth value and the second water depth value formed by the recombined ultra-short baseline positioning data to eliminate points with an abnormal trend, and letting the trend of keeping the recombined ultra-short baseline positioning data consistent with a topography of AUV sounding data;. which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating data to extract pertinent information, further comparing data points to other datapoints, and evaluating the degree of abnormality of data with respect to a defined threshold. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
in terms of heading, with the assistance of ship-borne GPS positioning data, monitoring change frequencies of two sets of positioning data with change positions of time and ultra-short baseline positioning data in heading, being supplemented by navigation direction and speed data, and eliminating abnormal data of ultra-short baseline in an X direction to obtain processed and recombined ultra-short baseline positioning data; which can reasonably be read to entail observing two sets of positioning data and making judgments based on the observations. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
and interpolate the corrected ultra-short baseline positioning data, so as to obtain near-seabed video positioning data; and This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail utilizing a data model to estimate data values between unknown points. The claim recites the utilization of a generic computing component to execute the recited functionality (a simulation) to derive positioning data. This is a process, that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind because a human being is capable of interpolating data. Therefore, this claim includes an additional recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
acquiring ultra-short baseline positioning data including longitude information, latitude information and a first water depth value by using an ultra-short baseline positioning system;- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering
taking bathymetric data integrated with the processed ultra-short baseline positioning data as a second water depth value obtained by a conductivity-temperature-depth sensor - This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering
using a function of extracting value to point in a toolbox of a geographic information system - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for merely invoking the use of computers to perform an existing task
simulating, correcting and modeling the processed and recombined ultra-short baseline positioning data from the perspective of time series to obtain corrected ultra-short baseline positioning data and a model;- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for merely invoking the use of computers to perform an existing task
using the model to simulate - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for merely invoking the use of computers to perform an existing task
performing, based on the near-seabed video positioning data, underwater positioning of a deep-sea camera equipment, and performing deep-sea prospecting to obtain mineral resources.- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for reciting the equivalent of “apply it” with regard to the judicial exception
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or reciting the equivalent of the words “apply it” with regard for the judicial exception (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); and adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
acquiring ultra-short baseline positioning data including longitude information, latitude information and a first water depth value by using an ultra-short baseline positioning system;- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering, as stated previously. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation encompasses receiving data over a network. Receiving data over a network has been recognized by the courts as a computer function that is well understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner.
taking bathymetric data integrated with the processed ultra-short baseline positioning data as a second water depth value obtained by a conductivity-temperature-depth sensor - This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering, as stated previously. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation encompasses receiving data over a network. Receiving data over a network has been recognized by the courts as a computer function that is well understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner.
The courts have found that simply appending insignificant extra solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities to the judicial exception does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The remaining additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process and reciting the words “apply it” with regard for the judicial exception does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity in conjunction with well-understood, routine, and conventional activity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims:
Examiner notes limitations identified as judicial exceptions are indicated in italicized bold and limitations identified as additional elements are indicated using italics.
Claim 4
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 4, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation respectively calculating correction coefficients of longitude and latitude after removing abnormal points in the processed and recombined ultra-short baseline positioning data by a cubic polynomial least square fitting method, and determining a fitting formula according to the correction coefficients; and, which can reasonably be read to entail calculating correcting coefficients using a polynomial least square fitting method. This is the explicit recitation of a mathematical calculation and therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. Furthermore, this can be performed practically in the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the additional recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. The claim further recites the additional element fitting the processed and recombined ultra-short baseline positioning data by using the fitting formula, and further determining the model by testing fitting effects of the processed and recombined ultra-short baseline positioning data after removing anomalies. This claim limitation entails using a fitting formula to modify data. This is the recitation of a mathematical calculation and is therefore the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. Furthermore, this task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim also includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 4 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 5, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 5 additionally recites the limitation wherein before the fitting formula is determined, the data is centralized and standardized, and the determined fitting formula is expressed as follows: f(x)=p_1 x^3+p_2 x^2+p_3 x+p_4 among them, p1, p2, p3, and p4 are the correction coefficients, and x is a total number of all points in the processed and recombined ultra-short baseline positioning data except the abnormal points. which can reasonably be read to entail mathematically manipulating data such as to adhere to a fitting formula. This is the recitation of a mathematical calculation. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. Additionally, the manipulations of the data can practically be performed in the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 5 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 6, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 6 additionally recites the limitation wherein error data, which is generated by time change of the processed and recombined ultra-short baseline positioning data on the ultra-short baseline heading, is corrected by the fitting formula, and the ultra-short baseline positioning data after spatial fitting is simulated with time as the constraint, the ultrashort baseline positioning data after spatial fitting is the near-seabed video positioning data which can reasonably be read to entail correcting error data according to the evaluation of the data with regard to a fitting formula. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. The utilization of the fitting formula is the recitation of a mathematical calculation and therefore, this claim includes the recitation of abstract ideas as mathematical concepts. Furthermore, the correction of data can be performed practically in the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The claim includes the utilization of a simulation to perform the mental process, wherein a simulation recited at a high level of generality used to execute the mental process is still the recitation of a mental process and does not meaningfully limit the claim. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 6 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 7, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 7 additionally recites the limitation wherein after the near-seabed video positioning is obtained, part of the ultra-short baseline positioning data with a target quality is picked out to be compared with positioning data predicted by interpolation to verify the effectiveness of the video positioning correction method which can reasonably be read to entail selecting data with good quality and comparing the data to interpolated data for accuracy evaluation. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 7 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 4-7 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
A complete prior art search has been performed for the amended claims; however, the search did not uncover any prior art that fairly teach or suggest the features in the claims. Specifically, independent claim 1 is considered allowable over the prior art because none of the references of record either alone or in combination fairly disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the claims, including at least:
taking bathymetric data integrated with the processed ultra-short baseline positioning data as a second water depth value obtained by a conductivity-temperature-depth sensor, and corresponding the processed ultra-short baseline positioning data to the second water depth value in a one-to-one manner according to time to obtain recombined ultra-short baseline positioning data and.
The closest prior art of record includes Second Institute of Oceanography MNR (CN 111208547 A), as discussed in the prior office action. This reference discloses establishing a mapping table of correspondence between all survey line data files, wherein USBL data, a digital elevation model, and water depth values are included in the collected data but the reference does not disclose or fairly suggest a one-to-one correspondence of processed ultra-short baseline positioning data and a second water depth value according to time to obtain recombined ultra-short baseline positioning data. No suggestion or explicit disclosures for modifying the reference in order to arrive at the claimed invention were found in the prior art search.
When taken as a whole, the dependent claims have been found allowable over the prior art for at least the above features recited in the independent claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
ArcGIS (ArcGIS, "ArcGIS Desktop- Exercise 4: Comparing models", Available Online November 2019, desktop.arcgis.com (Year: 2019)) discloses the utilization of a cross validation statistics analysis for comparing models so as to make informed decisions about models that provide the best accuracy.
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 EMILY GORMAN LEATHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1880. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:00 pm 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, EMERSON PUENTE can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/E.G.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/ANDRE PIERRE LOUIS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187 December 2, 2025
Prosecution Insights