DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 16 and 17 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 16, line 2 recites the limitation “vehicle types”, however, the addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(E).
Claim 16, line 7 recites the limitation “vehicle types”, however, the addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(E).
Claim 16, line 8 recites the limitation “vehicle types”, however, the addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(E).
Claim 17, line 1 recites the limitation “vehicle types”, however, the addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(E).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 16-19, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurgen EP 3231699 A1 in view of Rudolf et al. DE 102018212923 A1 (page/line numbering used for foreign references below corresponds to the machine-translation preceding the original patent, as attached to the present Office Action – note page numbers of the translation are marked as TP-1, TP-2, etc.).
Regarding independent claim 16, Jurgen discloses [a method for providing an adaptive mobility solution for a vehicle which can represent different vehicle types,] (Page 5, lines 22-31) and [adapting the vehicle type, said adapting comprising adapting at least a drive and a display of a license plate.] (Page 4, lines 21-26; Jurgen discloses that the vehicle 1 includes a drive 13 with at least one electric motor 12, the drive is operable between a first and second operational mode which depends on the state of a visible or invisible license plate 62. Jurgen discloses the adaptation of both the drive and the license plate display such that the operating state of the drive is linked to whether the license information is shown or hidden.)
Jurgen does not disclose the method comprising: detecting a current position of the vehicle, and calculating a route from a start point (A) to a destination point (B) such that specifications to fulfill permission for traveling the route or route sections thereof are determined therefrom, the route calculation taking place such that road types which are permitted for different vehicle types are not excluded, and adapting the vehicle type in a manner which is dependent on a route section of the route which is currently being traveled, such that the specifications determined therefor for traveling the route section are fulfilled.
Rudolf et al. teaches the method comprising: [detecting a current position of the vehicle, and calculating a route from a start point (A) to a destination point (B) such that specifications to fulfill permission for traveling the route or route sections thereof are determined therefrom, the route calculation taking place such that road types which are permitted for different vehicle types are not excluded,] (Page 2, lines 33-35) and [adapting the vehicle type in a manner which is dependent on a route section of the route which is currently being traveled, such that the specifications determined therefor for traveling the route section are fulfilled;] (Abstract; Rudolf et al. discloses a system that stores data records describing geographical zones with corresponding maximum speed restrictions, determines the vehicles position relative to the zones, and adapts the vehicles operation accordingly. When the vehicle enters a zone with a speed restriction, the system causes the drive system to reduce the drive power and/or applies braking to ensure compliance with the maximum speed specified for the route section. Thus, describing adaptation of the vehicle that is explicitly dependent on the current route section, to fulfill the specifications required for traveling with that section.) [dependent on the route section which is currently being traveled and the specifications which are determined therefor;] (Abstract; Rudolf et al. discloses a system that stores data records describing geographical zones with corresponding maximum speed restrictions, determines the vehicles position relative to the zones, and adapts the vehicles operation accordingly. When the vehicle enters a zone with a speed restriction, the system causes the drive system to reduce the drive power and/or applies braking to ensure compliance with the maximum speed specified for the route section. Thus, describing adaptation of the vehicle that is explicitly dependent on the current route section, to fulfill the specifications required for traveling with that section.) [wherein adapting the vehicle type includes adapting the vehicle type to a predefined setting in a case where the specifications to fulfill permission for traveling the route or route sections are not properly detected.] (Page 3, lines 3-7; Rudolf et al. discloses a vehicle localization module that normally relies on a satellite-based navigation system but additional comprises an inertial navigation system, which provides a fallback if the satellite system is unavailable or overridden by manipulation, such as shielding the antenna. This teaches the claimed limitation, as the fallback inertial system allows continued safe operation despite failure of the primary detection system.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the route-based adaptation of Rudolf et al. with the adaptive mobility system of Jurgen with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the adaptive vehicle to further account for real-world route-specific requirements (speed restrictions and roadway permissions, etc.), thus improving compliance and operation flexibility.
Regarding claim 17, Jurgen, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein adapting the vehicle type includes adapting the vehicle to a bicycle, an electric bicycle, or a motor vehicle.] (Page 4, lines 21-26 of Jurgen; Jurgen discloses a vehicle with a drive comprising at least one electric motor, the drive having at least two operational modes in which an operation parameter of the drive is limited to a first target area in a first operational mode and to a second target area in a second operational mode, wherein the second operational mode is enabled only if written information on a vehicle tag is visible, and the first operational mode applies when the tag is invisible. This teaches adapting a single vehicle between different categories of use depending on authorization, where the restricted first operational mode corresponds to a bicycle or electric bicycle type of operation, and the second operational mode corresponds to a motor vehicle type of operation.)
Regarding claims 18 and 21, Jurgen, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein adapting the vehicle type includes controllably and selectively displaying or concealing a license number] (Page 4, lines 21-26 of Jurgen; Jurgen discloses that the vehicle 1 includes a drive 13 with at least one electric motor 12, the drive is operable between a first and second operational mode which depends on the state of a visible or invisible license plate 62. Jurgen discloses the adaptation of both the drive and the license plate display such that the operating state of the drive is linked to whether the license information is shown or hidden.) and the route dependent control system recited in the rejection of claim 16 above.
Regarding claim 19 and 23, Jurgen, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including the adapting control system recited in the rejection of claim 16 above.
Claims 20 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurgen in view of Rudolf et al. and further in view of Linder et al. DE 102018203597 A1 (page/line numbering used for foreign references below corresponds to the machine-translation preceding the original patent, as attached to the present Office Action – note page numbers of the translation are marked as TP-1, TP-2, etc.).
Regarding claims 20 and 24, Jurgen, as modified, further discloses [wherein adapting the vehicle type includes adapting to one of a plurality of adaptation options.] (Page 4, lines 21-26 of Jurgen; Jurgen discloses a drive having two operational modes, including a first mode with restricted drive parameters, and a second mode with expanded drive parameters, wherein the vehicle can operate in either mode depending on conditions such as visibility of the license plate.)
Jurgen, as modified, does not disclose wherein the adaptation options of the vehicle type of the vehicle are enabled or denied in a manner which is dependent on a determined authorization of a current user.
Linder et al. teaches [wherein the adaptation options of the vehicle type of the vehicle are enabled or denied in a manner which is dependent on a determined authorization of a current user;] (Page 3, lines 18-45; Linder et al. discloses an adjusting device having a reader configured to read documentation certifying the individual abilities of a user, such as a drives license or other identification, which may include qualifications, age, or proof of capability. The system determines the user’s authorization based on the information from the certificate, and may include biometric identification or other means to securely identify the user. Based on this determined authorization, the adjusting device sets limitations or enables certain functions, such as maximum speed or operational modes, thus controlling which vehicle adaptations the user is allowed to access.) [wherein the vehicle type is set to a predefined basic setting which allows the vehicle to be driven without the determined authorization;] (Page 2, lines 1-15; Linder et al. discloses that whether a person may legally operate a vehicle depends on the user’s qualification, such as a driver’s license indicating a permitted driving class, and that vehicles are often technically restricted to a maximum speed based on tis qualification. For instance, a normal Pedelec is limited to 25 km/h, while an S-Pedelec is limited to 45 km/h and only users with the appropriate license can legally operate the higher-speed vehicle. Linder discloses that from a technical perspective, the vehicle could be adapted to a lower maximum speed to comply with legal requirements for an unauthorized user. Thus, corresponding to the limitation of setting the vehicle to a predefined setting that allows the vehicle to be driven without the determined authorization.) [wherein driving of the vehicle is refused in the case where the determined authorization does not occur.] (Page 2, lines 34-42; Linder et al. discloses that when a user exceeds the set maximum speed of a vehicle, the engine may be switched off or operated so that it no longer provides drive power, may actively brake the vehicle to reduce the maximum speed, or may be throttled so that engine power is insufficient to exceed the maximum speed. Thus, teaching that the driving of the vehicle is refused when the user’s determined authorization does not permit operation at higher speeds.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the user authorization and identification system of Linder et al with the adaptive mobility system of Jurgen, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for controlling which vehicle adaptation modes are permitted for each user based on their qualifications/permissions, thus enhancing the safety and legal compliance of the adaptive vehicle system.
Regarding claim 25, Jurgen, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including the predefined basic setting recited in the rejection of claim 20 and 24 above.
Regarding claim 26, Jurgen, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including the predetermined authorization recited in the rejection of claim 20 and 24 above.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurgen in view of Rudolf et al. and further in view of Liu CN 202541449 U (page/line numbering used for foreign references below corresponds to the machine-translation preceding the original patent, as attached to the present Office Action – note page numbers of the translation are marked as TP-1, TP-2, etc.).
Regarding claim 22, Jurgen, as modified, does not disclose wherein displaying the license number includes displaying the license plate number in an analog or digital manner.
Liu teaches [wherein displaying the license number includes displaying the license plate number in an analog or digital manner.] (Fig. 1-4; Paragraph 0014)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the digital license plate of Liu with the adaptive mobility system of Jurgen, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the vehicle to selectively display the license plate digitally, thus providing a clear and programmable method of showing the registration information.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurgen in view of Rudolf et al. and further in view of Frevert et al. DE 102017004690 A1 (page/line numbering used for foreign references below corresponds to the machine-translation preceding the original patent, as attached to the present Office Action – note page numbers of the translation are marked as TP-1, TP-2, etc.).
Regarding claim 27, Jurgen, as modified, does not disclose wherein adapting the vehicle type further comprises adapting the vehicle type responsive in part to current user confirmation of the adapting of the vehicle type.
Frevert et al. teaches [wherein adapting the vehicle type further comprises adapting the vehicle type responsive in part to current user confirmation of the adapting of the vehicle type.] (Page 3, lines 1-18; Frevert et al. discloses a hybrid vehicle that may operate in multiple modes, including an emission-free electric mode and an engine mode, and further teaches that the user can manually select among several variants of the second mode. In particular, the user can choose the desired driving mode, such as electric-only or hybrid, based on conditions such as battery charge or navigation requirements. Thus, the vehicle’s operational mode is selected only when the user approves or initiates the mode change, providing user-in-the-loop control over the vehicle adaptation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the user confirmation feature of Frevert et al. with the adaptive mobility system of Jurgen, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the vehicle to adapt its type while still allowing the user to approve or confirm the adaptation, thus providing user-in-the-loop control and improving safety and usability of the adaptive vehicle system.
Claims 28-29, 31-33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurgen in view of Rudolf et al. and further in view of Vandenbussche et al. US 10789790 B1.
Regarding claim 28, Jurgen, as modified, further discloses [an adaptive mobility apparatus having a vehicle 1 which has at least two wheels, comprising: at least one seat, and a handlebar,] (Fig. 1 or Jurgen; As shown in Fig. 1, Jurgen illustrates a vehicle 1 which has at least two wheels, comprising: at least one seat, and a handlebar.) [at least one mechanically operated drive 13 which is operatively connected to at least one wheel of the vehicle,] (Fig. 2-4 of Jurgen; Page 5, lines 22-24 of Jurgen) [the at least one mechanically operated drive configured to drive the at least one wheel as a sole or auxiliary drive,] (Fig. 2-4 of Jurgen; Page 5, lines 22-24 of Jurgen) [wherein the vehicle has properties configured to be adapted such that the vehicle can represent different vehicle types which are allowed to move on different road types,] (Page 5, lines 22-36 of Jurgen) [wherein the apparatus further comprises: a display unit 62 configured to selectively display or conceal a license number,] (Page 4, lines 21-26 of Jurgen; Jurgen discloses that the vehicle 1 includes a drive 13 with at least one electric motor 12, the drive is operable between a first and second operational mode which depends on the state of a visible or invisible license plate 62. Jurgen discloses the adaptation of both the drive and the license plate display such that the operating state of the drive is linked to whether the license information is shown or hidden.) [a control device 4 configured to carry out the method as claimed in claim 16, wherein the control device contains data regarding the vehicle types which the vehicle can represent, has a communications link to the drive and is configured to transmit control signals to the drive in order to adapt an operation of the drive] (Fig. 2 of Jurgen; Page 3, lines 11-27 of Jurgen; Jurgen discloses a control device 4 that interacts with the vehicles drive and license plate display. Specifically, a key unit comprising a chip readable by a controller, which carries identifying information to ensure proper assignment of a vehicle registration plate. Jurgen further discloses that the key unit includes an additional control device that activates the second operational mode of the electrical motor when the licenses plate is installed, and that the control device transmits modified control signals to the motor to provide additional power.) and has [a communications link to the display unit and transmits further control signals to the display unit in order to selectively display or conceal the license plate.] (Page 6, lines 22-28 of Jurgen; Jurgen discloses that when the registration plate is mounted on the vehicle and electrically connected through the interface, the motor control device reads the chassis number stored in the EEPROM and compares it with the stored data in the control device. Upon successful verification, the motor control device activates additional power for a higher operational mode, thus directly controlling whether the license plate is recognized and displayed as valid for operation.)
Jurgen, as modified, does not disclose front and rear lights and the control device serving as a navigation device for the route calculation.
Vandenbussche et al. teaches [front and rear lights 140, 142] (Col. 6, lines 43-50) and [the control device serving as a navigation device for the route calculation;] (Fig. 11; Col. 10, lines 9-35) [wherein the control device is arranged on a front region of the vehicle in a field of vision of a user, and wherein the control device includes: a separate control device, or a mobile device of the user serving as control device;] (Fig. 10-12; Col. 11, lines 13-29; Col. 11, lines 43-67; As shown in Fig. 10 and 11, Vandenbussche et al. illustrates the control device being arranged in a front region of the vehicle in a field of vision of a user and the control device includes a mobile device 1100 that serves as a control device.) [wherein the front and/or the rear light 140, 142 are configured to operate as a turn signal, or the vehicle includes a separate turn signal; and/or the display unit comprises an integrated lighting system.] (Col. 6, lines 43-63)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the lighting system and navigation capability of Vandenbussche et al. with the adaptive mobility system of Jurgen, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the vehicle to provide safe illumination for the user while traveling and simultaneously serve as a navigation device for route calculation, thus enhancing safety and route guidance functionality.
Regarding claim 29, Jurgen, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein: the display unit selectively displays or conceals the license plate mechanically by means of an actuator which can be actuated by the control device.] (Fig. 7-9 of Jurgen; Page 7, lines 13-29; Jurgen discloses a vehicle registration plate assembly mounted on a carrier 60, including a holding plate 61, display plate 62 with registration information, a hood 66, a shutter 63, and a hook 65. Jurgen teaches that the shutter is moveable between positions such that in a first position, the display plate is visible from behind the vehicle, and in another position, the display plate may be concealed or covered. The shutter is operatively connected to components such as a pulley and hook, which allow for mechanical movement of the shutter relative to the display plate. This configuration constitutes a mechanical actuator that selectively conceals or reveals the license plate.)
Regarding claim 31, Jurgen, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the drive comprises an electric drive configured to: be operated by means of a hand or foot throttle, and/or supply electrical energy to one or more of a group comprising the control device, the display unit, and a lighting system of the vehicle.] (Page 4, lines 1-2 of Jurgen; Page 5, lines 25-29 of Jurgen)
Regarding claim 32, Jurgen, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including the control device arrangement recited in the rejection of claim 28 above.
Regarding claim 33, Jurgen, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including the front and/or rear lights recited in the rejection of claim 28 above.
Regarding claim 35, Jurgen, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein: the vehicle comprises a single-track or multiple-track vehicle with two, three or four wheels, and/or a width of the vehicle is selected such that the vehicle does not exceed a maximum permitted overall width for traveling on cycle paths, and/or the vehicle further comprises a canopy for protecting a user and/or the control device.] (Fig. 1 of Jurgen; As shown in Fig. 1, Jurgen illustrates the vehicle comprising a single-track with two wheels.)
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurgen in view of Rudolf et al. and Vandenbussche et al. US 10789790 B1, and further in view of Liu CN 202541449 U (page/line numbering used for foreign references below corresponds to the machine-translation preceding the original patent, as attached to the present Office Action – note page numbers of the translation are marked as TP-1, TP-2, etc.).
Regarding claim 30, Jurgen, as modified, further discloses [the license plate being selectively displayed or concealed.] (Page 4, lines 21-26 of Jurgen; Jurgen discloses that the vehicle 1 includes a drive 13 with at least one electric motor 12, the drive is operable between a first and second operational mode which depends on the state of a visible or invisible license plate 62. Jurgen discloses the adaptation of both the drive and the license plate display such that the operating state of the drive is linked to whether the license information is shown or hidden.)
Jurgen does not disclose wherein the display unit comprises a digital display.
Liu teaches [wherein the display unit comprises a digital display.] (Fig. 1-4; Paragraph 0014)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the digital license plate of Liu with the adaptive mobility system of Jurgen, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the vehicle to selectively display the license plate digitally, thus providing a clear and programmable method of showing the registration information.
Allowable Subject Matter
The reasons for allowance were previously set forth in the prior Office Action (filed 09/30/2025) with respect to claim 34. Applicant has not presented arguments or amendments that would alter those determinations. Accordingly, the previously stated reasons for allowance are hereby incorporated by reference and are maintained without modification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed 01/30/2026 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendments have been entered. Examiner notes that claims 20, 24, and 28 have been amended. In light of amendments, all objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Page 9, lines 15-20 and Page 10, lines 1-18 of Amendment/Request for Reconsideration) that the term “vehicle types” is definite because it refers to a category or style of vehicle (e.g., bicycle, motorcycle). This argument is not persuasive. While Applicant asserts a general meaning, the claims do not provide objective boundaries or criteria for distinguishing between different “vehicle types.” The term is used in a manner that affects the scope of the claimed invention--particularly with respect to adapting the vehicle--yet lacks clear structural or operational limitations defining what constitutes a given “vehicle type”.
Applicant argues (Page 10, lines 19-22 and Page 11, lines 1-3 of Amendment/Request for Reconsideration) that neither Jurgen nor Rudolf teaches “calculating a route from a start point (A) to a destination (B) such that specifications to fulfill permission for traveling the route or route sections thereof are determined therefrom. In particular, Applicant contends that Rudolf only determines a current position or trajectory and does not calculate a route as claimed. This argument is not persuasive. Rudolf discloses a system that stores data records describing geographical zones with corresponding operational constraints, such as maximum speed restrictions, determines the vehicle’s positions relative to those zones, and adapts the vehicle’s operations accordingly. Specifically, when the vehicle enters a zone with a speed restriction, the system reduces drive power and/or applies braking to ensure compliance with the maximum speed associated with that portion of travel. Thus, Rudolf teaches adapting the vehicle based on the specific section of the path being traversed, where the applicable specifications are derived from location-dependent data.
Applicant argues (Page 13, lines 6-12 of Amendment/Request for Reconsideration) that the cited references fail to disclose “a control device configured to carry out the method as claimed in claim 16,” particularly with respect to adapting both the drive and the display of a license plate, and asserts that Jurgen only permits manual handling of the license plate. This argument is not persuasive. Jurgen discloses a motor control device that communicates with both the vehicle’s drive system and the license plate system through an interface. Specifically, Jurgen teaches that a registration plate includes a memory (e.g., EEPROM) storing identifying information, which is read by the control device and compared to stored data. Based on this verification, the control device automatically activates a second operational mode by transmitting modified control signals to the motor to provide additional power. Thus, Jurgen demonstrates that the control device processes license plate-related information and automatically adapts the operation of the drive in response to the state of the license plate, rather than requiring purely manual intervention. Also, claim 28 recites “a display unit configured to selectively display OR conceal a license number.” Jurgen discloses a license plate assembly including a movable shutter that selectively conceals or revels the license plate, thus satisfying the claimed alternative requirement of displaying or concealing the license number. The use of “or” in the claim indicates that either functionality alone is sufficient.
Conclusion
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 Mohamed Medani whose telephone number is (703)756-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. 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.
/Mohamed M Medani/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights