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 .
The current application is CON. of application No. 17/494431 (Pat. No. 11428532) & 17/348561. The application relates a provisional application No. 63/210411 & 63/040352 filed on Jun. 17, 2020.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant's amendment/arguments filed 05/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Drawing Objection: Applicant admitted that 37 CFR 1.83(a) requires the drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims”, thus the drawing object is properly and still remains.
Regarding the 101 Rejection: The claimed amendment does not overcome the 101 Rejection because the claims (e.g., independent claims 1, 13 & 25) with general function steps that a human can think and using pen and paper to write down what they think. The function steps are done by a general “magnetic-measuring device” and generic computer which direct to an abstract idea. In order to measure a magnetic data for a geomagnetic map, the claim must show in real, quantifiable physical phenomena that are actively captured using specialized hardware. The 101 rejection still remains.
Regarding the 112 Rejection: Applicant amended claims 13-36 which overcome the current rejection. However, claim 1 is not. The “magnetic-measurement device” stated only on the abstract and claims. The magnetic measurement is done by a magnetic navigation device which comprises a magnetic sensor system for measuring the magnetic information data that stored in a memory (see Fig. 1). Thus, the claims 1-12 have 112(a) and 112(b) issue.
Regarding the 103 Rejection: Examiner found new references for updating the 103 rejection (see below).
Drawings Objection
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
There is not any drawing that represents “a magnetic-measurement device” with the function steps of the claims 1-12. Therefore, the “magnetic-measurement device” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The current application’s drawings have shown in Fig.1B for a magnetic navigation device which relates to the functions steps of the current application’s claims. Applicant suggested to change the “magnetic-measurement device” to – magnetic navigation device-- .
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1, 13, 25 & 37:
Claim 1. A method comprising:
by a magnetic-measurement device, collecting measuring a geomagnetic field to produce one or more magnetic measurements in association with a position and trajectory of the magnetic-measurement device;
by the magnetic-measurement device, determining a velocity of the magnetic- measurement device;
by the magnetic-measurement device, generating localization information for the magnetic-measurement device based at least in part on the velocity of the magnetic- measurement device;
by the magnetic-measurement device, storing the localization information associated with the magnetic measurements in a memory of the magnetic- measurement device; and
by the magnetic-measurement device, communicating the localization information and the magnetic measurements for incorporation into a geomagnetic map.
Claim 13. One or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media embodying software that is operable when executed to:
by a device comprising the computer-readable non-transitory storage media, measure a geomagnetic field to produce one or more magnetic measurements in association with a position and trajectory of the device;
determine a velocity of the device;
generate localization information for the device based at least in part on the velocity of the device;
store the localization information associated with the magnetic measurements in a memory of the device; and
communicate the localization information and the magnetic measurements for incorporation into a geomagnetic map.
Claim 25. An apparatus for incorporating one or more regional magnetic data sets into a master geomagnetic map, wherein the apparatus comprises:
one or more processors; and
one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media coupled to the processors that embody software that is operable when executed by the processors to:
measure a geomagnetic field to produce one or more magnetic measurements in association with a position and trajectory of the magnetic-measurement device;
determine a velocity of the device;
generate localization information for the device based at least in part on the velocity of the device;
associated with the magnetic measurements in a memory of the apparatus; and
communicate the localization information and the magnetic measurements for incorporation into a geomagnetic map.
Claim 37. A system comprising:
means for measuring a geomagnetic field to produce one or more magnetic measurements in association with a position and trajectory of a magnetic- measurement device;
means for determining a velocity of the magnetic-measurement device;
means for generating localization information for the magnetic-measurement device based at least in part on the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device;
means for storing the localization information associated with the magnetic measurements in a memory of the magnetic-measurement device; and
means for communicating the localization information and the magnetic measurements for incorporation into a geomagnetic map.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claims above recite a method and system including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes and mathematical concept.
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mathematical concepts” & “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” with mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claims recite the limitation of “measure a geomagnetic field to produce one or more magnetic measurements in association with a position and trajectory of the device”; “determine a velocity of the device”; “generate localization information for the device based at least in part on the velocity of the magnetic- measurement device”; “store the localization information associated with the magnetic measurements in a memory of the magnetic-measurement device”; and “communicate the localization information and the magnetic measurements for incorporation into a geomagnetic map”.
. This limitation, as drafted, are simple processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and mathematical concepts but for the recitation of “by device”. That is, other than reciting “by device” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a device” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected, calculate with the collected information and simply communicating (transmitting) the information. The mere nominal recitation of by “by device” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements, for the function steps above, such as “one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media (in claim 13), an apparatus comprises one or more processors, and one or more computer (in claim 25), and a system with means functions in claim 37 which are generic components and generic computer of insignificant extra-solution
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic apparatus with generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that the additional elements (“one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media (in claim 13), an apparatus comprises one or more processors, and one or more computer (in claim 25), and a system with means functions in claim 37) are insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the determining, measuring, generating, storing and communicating steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification (in drawings section, and the detailed section) do not provide any indication that the “magnetic-measurement device” processes those claims’ function steps. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Accordingly, a conclusion that the determining, measuring, generating, storing and communicating steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims(s) 2-12, 14-24 & 26-36 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12, 14-24 & 26-36 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of 1, 13, 25 & 37.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-37 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13, 20 & 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, e.g., the language, “a method comprising: by a device”, that is indefinite because it claims both a device and method steps. (See MPEP 2173.05 (p) (II), “Product and Process in the Same Claim”).
Claims 8, 20 & 23 are unclear cause if GNSS is unavailable, how and what manner the device using GNSS for determining the localization, and velocity?
Claims 2-13 depend upon rejected claim above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 12-13, 17-18, 24-25, 29 & 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (20170097237).
With regard to claims 1 & 37, Wang discloses a method and system comprising:
measuring a geomagnetic field to produce one or more magnetic measurements in association with a position of a device (an activity area of an object to be located is conducted a field measurement, see [0030]+);
determining a velocity of the magnetic-measurement (determining the object’s movement and direction and intensity of the magnetic field are represented by vector, see [0036][0037]+);
generating localization information for the magnetic-measurement device based at least in part on the velocity of the device (object position estimation based pm the particles sampled, the mean value, and etc., to estimate the current position of the object, see[0040]-[0043]+);
storing the localization information associated with the magnetic measurements in a memory of the magnetic-measurement device (the device has a processor and memory which stores the device’s location, see [0010]+); and
communicating the localization information and the magnetic measurements for incorporation into a geomagnetic map (the device’s processor and memory electric communication for the updated geomagnetic field map until the object stops moving, see [0010]+).
Although Wang’s disclosure is not described as same world languages but Examiner interprets Wang’s teaching as shown above are equivalent the claim subject matter. For this reason, Wang is obvious suggestively, if not anticipatory, of the claimed subject matter.
With regard to 5, Wang teaches that the method of Claim 1, further comprising incorporating into the geomagnetic map the localization information and the magnetic measurements (updating geomagnetic field map in the range of movement of the object in real time according to the locating of the moving object, see [0005]+).
With regard to 6, Wang teaches that the method of Claim 5, wherein the localization information and the magnetic measurements are incorporated into the geomagnetic map by the magnetic-measurement device (the geomagnetic field values measured by a sensor, see [0047]-[0049]+).
With regard to 12, Wang teaches that the method of Claim 1, wherein the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device is determined, at least in part, using one or more of the magnetic measurements (the geomagnetic field values measured by a sensor, see [0047]-[0049]+).
With regard to claim 13, Wang discloses one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media embodying software that is operable when executed to:
by a device comprising the computer-readable non-transitory storage media, measure a geomagnetic field to produce one or more magnetic measurements in association with a position and trajectory of the device (a non-computer-readable storage medium, see [0015], an activity area of an object to be located is conducted a field measurement, see [0030]+);
determine a velocity of the device (determining the object’s movement and direction and intensity of the magnetic field are represented by vector, see [0036][0037]+);
generate localization information for the device based at least in part on the velocity of the device (object position estimation based pm the particles sampled, the mean value, and etc., to estimate the current position of the object, see[0040]-[0043]+);
store the localization information associated with the magnetic measurements in a memory of the device (the device has a processor and memory which stores the device’s location, see [0010]+);; and
communicate the localization information and the magnetic measurements for incorporation into a geomagnetic map (the device’s processor and memory electric communication for the updated geomagnetic field map until the object stops moving, see [0010]+).
Although Wang’s disclosure is not described as same world languages but Examiner interprets Wang’s teaching as shown above are equivalent the claim subject matter. For this reason, Wang is obvious suggestively, if not anticipatory, of the claimed subject matter.
With regard to 17, Wang teaches that the media of Claim 13, wherein the software is further operable when executed to incorporate into the geomagnetic map, the localization information and the magnetic measurements (see [0065]-[0067]+).
With regard to 18, Wang teaches that the media of Claim 17, wherein the localization information and the magnetic measurements are incorporated into the geomagnetic
map by the magnetic-measurement device (see [051]-[0060]+).
With regard to 24, Wang teaches that the media of Claim 13, wherein the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device is determined, at least in part, using one or more of the magnetic measurements (the geomagnetic field values measured by a sensor, see [0047]-[0049]+).
With regard to claim 25, Wang discloses an apparatus for incorporating one or more regional magnetic data sets into a master geomagnetic map, wherein the apparatus comprises: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media coupled to the processors that embody software that is operable (see [0015]+)when executed by the processors to:
measure a geomagnetic field to produce one or more magnetic measurements in association with a position and trajectory of the magnetic-measurement device (an activity area of an object to be located is conducted a field measurement, see [0030]+);;
determine a velocity of the device (determining the object’s movement and direction and intensity of the magnetic field are represented by vector, see [0036][0037]+);
generate localization information for the device based at least in part on the velocity of the device;
the device has a processor and memory which stores the device’s location, see [0010]+); and
communicate the localization information and the magnetic measurements for incorporation into a geomagnetic map (the device’s processor and memory electric communication for the updated geomagnetic field map until the object stops moving, see [0010]+).
Although Wang’s disclosure is not described as same world languages but Examiner interprets Wang’s teaching as shown above are equivalent the claim subject matter. For this reason, Wang is obvious suggestively, if not anticipatory, of the claimed subject matter.
With regard to claim 29, Wang teaches that the media of Claim 25, wherein the software is further operable when executed to incorporate into the geomagnetic map the localization information and the magnetic measurements (see [0066]-[0067]+).
Claim(s) 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14-16, 19, 21-23, 26-30, 31, & 33-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (20170097237) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Breed (20070005609).
With regard to claims 2, 14, Wang discloses the claimed subject matter but fails to teach communicating the localization information and the magnetic measurements to a server.
Breed discloses a system comprises as shown in Fig.3 and Fig.4. The vehicle communicates its measurement information (such as vehicle’s information, location, and etc.) to a server. Wherein the server serves primatily to update various aspects of the database such as map, see [0065]+).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Wang by including a server for receiving from vehicle’s location and information as taught by Breed for updating the geomagnetic map frequently both with temporary and permanent changes.
With regard to claims 3, 15, Breed teaches that the method of claim 2, wherein the server is a mapping server or a regional server (see [0065]+).
With regard to claims 4 & 16, Breed teaches that the method of claim 3, wherein the server is collocated at least in part with the device (see [0065]+).
With regard to 7, Wang teaches that the map updating module 203 includes a map merging module 2032 which extracts a local geomagnetic field from a global geomagnetic field, creates a small map with the same size as the local map (the size of the grid), see [0065]+. Wang is silent the map updating module 203 as a server.
Bread’s system comprises devices (vehicle, phone, and etc.) collected their local, location information and sending them to a server for updating map, see [0065]+, the data facility in the server gathers large amount of information, see [0505]-[0506]+).
Based on the above findings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the geomagnetic map of Wang, for transmitting to the server taught by Breed to yield the predictable result of a combined system that comprises a server for geomagnetic map.
With regard to claims 9 & 21, Breed teaches that the method of Claim 1, wherein the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device is determined, at least in part, using an inertial measurement unit (IM) of the magnetic- measurement device (the vehicle generally has an IMU, see [0005]+).
With regard to claim 10 & 22, Breed teaches that the method of Claim 1, wherein the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device is determined, at least in part, by dead reckoning (Dead reckoning using vehicle speed, see [0219]+).
With regard to claims 11 & 23, Breed teaches that the method of Claim 1, wherein the magnetic-measurement device is one or more of a mobile phone, an automotive navigation system, a marine navigation system, an aerial navigation system, a drone, a robot, or a forklift (the system is used for the mobile device, automotive navigation, automatic vehicle, and etc., see the summary section).
With regard to 16, Breed teaches that the method of Claim 15, wherein the server is collocated at least in part with the magnetic-measurement device (obtaining the information indicative of the map in combination with information, see [0066]+).
With regard to 19, Breed teaches that the media Claim 17, wherein the localization information and the magnetic measurements are incorporated into the geomagnetic map by a server (the data facility in the server gathers large amount of information, see [0505]-[0506]+).
With regard to claim 26, Breed teaches that the media of Claim 25, wherein the localization information and the magnetic measurements are communicated to a server (local precise location is communicated to server, [0227] & [0231]+) .
With regard to claim 27, Breed teaches that the media of Claim 26, wherein the server is a mapping server or a regional server (see [0454]+).
With regard to claim 28, Breed teaches that the method of Claim 27, wherein the server is colocated at least in part with the device (obtaining the information indicative of the map in combination with information, see [0066]+).
With regard to claim 30, Breed teaches that the media of Claim 29, wherein the localization information and the magnetic measurements are incorporated into the geomagnetic map by the magnetic-measurement device (the data gathered a large amount of information at each vehicle and communicated to the data facility, see [0505]+).
With regard to claim 31, Breed teaches that the media Claim 29, wherein the localization information and the magnetic measurements are incorporated into the geomagnetic map by a server (the data facility in the server gathers large amount of information, see [0505]-[0506]+).
With regard to claim 33, Breed teaches that the media of Claim 25, wherein the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device is determined, at least in part, using an inertial measurement unit (IMU) of the magnetic- measurement device (the vehicle generally has an IMU, see [0213]+).
With regard to claim 34, Breed teaches that the media of Claim 25, wherein the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device is determined, at least in part, by dead reckoning (Dead reckoning using vehicle speed, see [0219]+).
With regard to claim 35, Breed teaches that the media of Claim 25, wherein the magnetic-measurement device is one or more of a mobile phone, an automotive navigation system, a marine navigation system, an aerial navigation system, a drone, a robot, or a forklift (the system is used for the mobile device, automotive navigation, automatic vehicle, and etc., see the summary section).
With regard to claim 36, Breed teaches that the media of Claim 25, wherein the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device is determined, at least in part, using one or more of the magnetic measurements (see [0119]+).
Claim(s) 8, 20 & 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ivanov (20210102968).
With regard to claims 8, 20 & 32, Wang discloses determining that localization and velocity of the device using the magnetic measurement but is silent whether the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) is unavailable or available.
Ivanov discloses the system that when the GNSS signals are poor or unavailable, the vehicle or mobile device 2 estimates position and velocity using inertia sensors such as gyroscopes and accelerometers, see [0137]+. Or the mobile device 2 enables to estimate position and velocity based on the received GNSS navigation data as part of GNSS assistance data from server when the GNSS signals are poor or unavailable (see [0151]-[0152]+.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Wang by including determining the localization and velocity of the device based on the received GNSS navigation data as part of GNSS assistance data from server when the GNSS signals are poor or unavailable as taught by Ivanov for improving the accuracy determining of location and velocity of the device whether the GNSS available and unavailable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5217. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30AM - 2:30PM.
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, JELANI SMITH can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
NGA X. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/NGA X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights