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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE102022202975.5, filed on 03/25/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 5/01/2023 and 9/14/2023 has been acknowledged.
Status of Application
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claim 1 is the independent claims.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 04/23/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control unit configured to perform the method” in claim 10. Claim 10 does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because “control unit” is considered to be a known device to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata (U.S. Patent No 5,474,148) in view of US-20110087390-A1 to Pandit et. al. (“Pandit”).
Regarding claim 1, Takata teaches a method for controlling motor assistance provided by a motor of an electric bike (Takata Figures 1,2 and Abstract). The method comprises:
determining a variable rate of change of a governing factor ("assist rate" or “assist ratio” = governing factor) based on at least a current speed of the electric bike and a target sped of the electric bike (Takata (19) “the assist ratio .eta. is held constant when the speed of the bicycle S is less than a predetermined relatively high speed S.sub.F. When this occurs, the assist F.sub.M will vary at the fixed ratio .eta..sub.0 to the pedal force F.sub.L as shown in FIG. 6 and the system operates like the conventional prior art types of systems. However, as the speed of the bicycle S approaches a speed that is greater than the speed S.sub.F, but is less than a higher speed S.sub.E, then the assist ratio .eta. gradually decreases in a linear function as will be described later by reference to FIG. 9.”), said variable rate of change defining the extent to which the governing factor changes over a defined time interval, said governing factor being a factor that determines a degree to which the motor assistance provided by the motor (Takata Claim 1 “an electric motor for exerting a driving force to said vehicle, means responsive to the output force signal of said force sensing means for supplying an amount of electrical power for operating said electric motor at a ratio related to said force signal for assisting the driving of said vehicle”) is limited (Takata Abstract “operator may select the assist ratio or assist ratio curve provided.” Figs. 9-10 ref a, c, d, e, etc, Col 1 lines 64-66 “Means are provided for selectively varying the amount of electric motor assist”, Claim 1 “operating said electric motor at a ratio related to said force signal for assisting the driving of said vehicle”, Claim 6, Claim 10 “means for selectively varying the variation in the amount of electric motor assist” Time can be anything, such as when the speed increases from a stopped condition to a predetermined low speed), wherein the variable rate of change is determined such that the governing factor is decremented when a current speed is greater than a target speed (Takata Claim 4: "wherein the electric motor assist ratio is reduced as the speed increases above the predetermined speed" ), and the governing factor is incremented when the current speed is less than a target speed (Takata Claim 6: "wherein the electric motor assist is varied from zero (0) assist ratio to a constant assist ratio as the speed of the vehicle increases from a stopped condition to a predetermined low speed").
Applying the determined variable rate of change to a current value of the governing factor to generate an adjusted governing factor (Takata Fig. 9-10 and col 4 line 67 to col 5 line 2 “assist ratio is decreased linearly as shown by the curve "a" until it reaches zero (0) at the speed S.sub.E” and Claim 10 “means for selectively varying the variation in the amount of electric motor assist”);
applying the adjusted governing factor to a determined motor assistance determined for actuating the motor so as (Takata col 5 lines 10-35 and claim 1 “an electric motor for exerting a driving force to said vehicle, means responsive to the output force signal of said force sensing means for supplying an amount of electrical power for operating said electric motor at a ratio related to said force signal for assisting the driving of said vehicle, a vehicle condition sensing device outputting a vehicle condition signal, and means for varying the ratio of electric motor assist relative to the force sensed by said force sensing means in response to the vehicle condition signal output by said vehicle condition sensing device.”), and
wherein the governing factor determines a degree to which the determined motor assistance is restricted (Takata Abstract) such that a greater governing factor results in greater motor assistance than a comparatively lesser governing factor (Takata Summary of the invention 60-64 and col 1 lines 32-37 “For example, at low speeds it may be desirable to provide a large electric motor drive force and this results in the election of a large assist rate .eta.. However, if this is used then when the vehicle is being driven at high speed, there will be high electrical energy applied and the speed may become excessive and cause excessive consumption of the battery.”).
Takata does not teach applying an adjusted governing factor to a determined motor assistance determined for actuating the motor so as to determine a resulting motor torque, and actuating the motor based on the resulting motor torque. However, Pandit teaches applying an adjusted governing factor to a determined motor assistance determined for actuating the motor so as to determine a resulting motor torque (Pandit Fig. 3A ref 304 and [0047] “the motor assistance profile may include a value indicating that the motor should provide a low level of assistance (e.g., a motor output torque of ten percent of the peak torque) at a speed of 20 km/h and an RPM of 3,200 RPM. In another example, the motor assistance profile may indicate that the motor should provide a higher level of assistance (e.g., a motor output torque of 90 percent of the peak torque) at a speed of 50 km/h and an RPM of 1,300 RPM. In various embodiments, the assistance levels reflected in the motor assistance profile may be based on other operating conditions, such as demand for acceleration, engine load, gear position, etc.”), and actuating the motor based on the resulting motor torque (Pandit Fig. 3B ref 330).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the apparatus of Takata to incorporate the teachings of Pandit such that the method comprises applying an adjusted governing factor to a determined motor assistance determined for actuating the motor so as to determine a resulting motor torque, and actuating the motor based on the resulting motor torque. Doing so would ensure that selectively controlling and/or operating the motor to provide assistance to the engine is possible (Pandit [0045]).
Regarding claim 5, Takata as modified by Pandit teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Takata further teaches that the determining of the variable rate of change further comprises: determining the variable the rate of change proportional to a difference between the current speed and the target speed (Takata Fig 9-10).
Regarding claim 8, Takata as modified by Pandit teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Takata further teaches that given a change in the current speed, the variable rate of change changes less within a predefined speed interval around the target speed than at a speed above and/or below the speed interval. (Takata Figure 10 curve 'e' and paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 9, Takata as modified by Pandit teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Takata further teaches a maximum duration beyond which a maximum speed can be exceeded is defined (Takata col 4 lines 58-61), and the motor assistance drops to zero within the maximum duration (Takata col 4 lines 58-61).
Regarding claim 10, Takata as modified by Pandit teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Takata further teaches an apparatus for controlling motor assistance provided by a motor of an electric bike, comprising a control unit configured to perform the method according to claim 1. (Takata "controlled by means of a controller 32" - col 2 lines 61-62)
Regarding claim 14, Takata as modified by Pandit teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Takata further teaches that the method further comprises determining the determined motor assistance before applying the adjusted governing factor to the determined motor assistance (Takata Claim 1).
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata in view of Pandit, further in view of Manewald (DE 102020200198).
Regarding claim 2, Takata as modified by Pandit teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 and that the determining of the variable rate of change further includes determining the variable rate of change based on the current speed (Takata Col 4 lines 41-42 "the assist ratio is varied in response to actual vehicle speed"). Takata as modified by Pandit does not teach that the variable rate of change further includes determining the variable rate of change based on a current acceleration of the electric bike. However, Manewald teaches that the variable rate of change further includes determining the variable rate of change based on a current acceleration (Manewald "The variable setting on the basis of an operating variable can be carried out by one or more operating parameters of the underlying work device or of the vehicle, for example the first and / or second limit speed is set or adjusted depending on the acceleration of the vehicle" Disclosure of the invention) of the electric bike (Manewald Abstract “an operating method for the drive (80) of a vehicle (1), bicycle, electric bicycle, eBikes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takata as modified by Pandit to incorporate the teachings of Manewald such that the determining of the variable rate of change further includes determining the variable rate of change based on the current speed and a current acceleration of the electric bike. Doing so would allow for the required down-regulations to be more adaptable and less abrupt and disruptive, as recognized by Manewald (Disclosure of the invention [0003]).
Regarding claim 3, Takata as modified by Pandit and Manewald teach all of the limitations of the current invention in claims 2. Takata further discloses that the determining of the variable rate of change further includes determining the variable rate of change based on additional measured variables (Takata Abstract) detected by a substrate detection device. (Takata torque sensor 33, vehicle speed sensor 66).
Regarding claim 4, Takata as modified by Pandit and Manewald teach all of the limitations of the current invention in claims 2. Manewald further discloses that determining of the variable rate of change further comprises: at an equal acceleration, increasing current speed causes the variable rate of change to lead to a faster decrementation of the governing factor (Manewald Fig. 4), and at an equal speed, increasing current acceleration causes the variable rate of change to lead to a faster decrementation of the governing factor. (Manewald "in the event of a particularly high acceleration… reduction of the relative motor support from the value 1 on the value 0 starts earlier" Preferred embodiments of the invention).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takata as modified by Pandit and Manewald to incorporate the teachings of Manewald such that determining of the variable rate of change further comprises: at an equal acceleration, increasing current speed causes the variable rate of change to lead to a faster decrementation of the governing factor, and at an equal speed, increasing current acceleration causes the variable rate of change to lead to a faster decrementation of the governing factor. Doing so would prevent abrupt disruptions (Disclosure of the invention [0003]) and reduce the jerky feeling to riders (Preferred embodiments of the invention [0045]), as recognized by Manewald.
Regarding claim 6, Takata as modified by Pandit teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Takata as modified by Pandit does not teach that the governing factor is restricted to a minimum value of "0" and a maximum value of "1". However, Manewald teaches that the governing factor is restricted to a minimum value of "0" and a maximum value of "1". (Fig 4 Manewald).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takata as modified by Pandit to incorporate the teachings of Manewald such that the possible values of the rate of change are restricted to a predefined interval, and/or the governing factor is restricted to a minimum value of "0" and a maximum value of "1". Doing so would allow for the maximum producible engine torque (“1”) and no motor support (“0”) to easily be identified as recognized by Manewald (Preferred embodiments of the invention [0038]).
Regarding claim 11, Takata as modified by Pandit and Manewald teach all of the elements of the current invention in claims 3. Manewald further discloses additional measured variables, including a maximum motor torque ("maximum torque applied" - Manewald), and a rider torque ("muscular motor torque applied by the driver to the output shaft" - Manewald).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takata as modified by Pandit and Manewald to incorporate the teachings of Manewald such that the additional measured variables the rate of change depends on includes a maximum motor torque and a rider torque. Doing so would allow for the vehicle to considering different operating conditions, including user input, as recognized by Manewald (Disclosure of the invention [0004] and [0008]).
Claim(s) 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata in view of Pandit, further in view of Huang (CN 113415375).
Regarding claim 7, Takata as modified by Pandit teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Takata as modified by Pandit does not teach that the determined motor assistance to which governing factor is applied is the respectively lesser of a maximum allowable motor torque and a torque requested by a rider. However, Huang teaches that the determined motor assistance to which governing factor is applied is the respectively lesser of a maximum allowable motor torque (Huang "target motor torque") and a torque requested by a rider (Huang "current pedal torque"). (Huang Claim 8 "calculating the product of the adjustment coefficient and the target motor torque to obtain the adjusted target motor torque;" and Description “controlling the motor based on the adjusted target motor torque”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takata as modified by Pandit to incorporate the teachings of Huang such that the determined motor assistance to which governing factor is applied is the respectively lesser of a maximum allowable motor torque and a torque requested by a rider. Doing so would allow the power-assisted bicycle to consider that the current human power output can be correspondingly changed along with different road conditions, as recognized by Huang (Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Takata as modified by Pandit teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Takata as modified by Pandit does not teach that the determined motor assistance is the respectively lesser of a maximum allowable motor torque and a torque requested by a rider and the applying of the adjusted governing factor includes multiplying the determined motor assistance by the adjusted governing factor in order to determine the resulting motor torque. However, Huang teaches that the determined motor assistance is the respectively lesser of a maximum allowable motor torque (Huang "target motor torque") and a torque requested by a rider (Huang “current pedal torque”) and the applying of the adjusted governing factor includes multiplying the determined motor assistance by the adjusted governing factor in order to determine the resulting motor torque (Huang Claim 8 "calculating the product of the adjustment coefficient and the target motor torque to obtain the adjusted target motor torque;" and Description “controlling the motor based on the adjusted target motor torque”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takata as modified by Pandit to incorporate the teachings of Huang such that the determined motor assistance is the respectively lesser of a maximum allowable motor torque and a torque requested by a rider and the applying of the adjusted governing factor includes multiplying the determined motor assistance by the adjusted governing factor in order to determine the resulting motor torque. Doing so would allow the power-assisted bicycle to consider that the current human power output can be correspondingly changed along with different road conditions, as recognized by Huang (Abstract).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata (U.S. Patent No 5,474,148) in view of Pandit, further in view of JP79 (JP-3974979-B2).
Regarding claim 13, Takata as modified by Pandit teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Takata as modified by Pandit does not teach that the variable rate of change of the governing factor represents a slope of a curve of the governing factor. However, JP79 teaches that the variable rate of change of the governing factor represents a slope of a curve of the governing factor (JP79 Fig. 7 and [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takata as modified by Pandit to incorporate the teachings of JP79 such that the variable rate of change of the governing factor represents a slope of a curve of the governing factor. Doing so would make it possible to obtain auxiliary power corresponding to the pedaling force, and to make it possible to travel comfortably without changing the auxiliary power with the same pedaling force (JP79 [0004]).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 04/23/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
However, even though applicant has amended the scope of the claims and the Office has provided new mapping of cited prior art below, the Office is still using some of the same cited prior art, thus the Office will attempt to address all remarks that remain relevant.
Applicant remarks:
Takata discloses a simple setting of the assist rate based on the current vehicle speed. Specifically, in Takata, the electric motor assist is "varied" by using a chart to set the assist rate based on the instantaneous speed of the bicycle. (Takata column 4, line 62 through column 5, line 20.) Thus, the assist rate in Takata is directly set from the characteristic curve. (Id.) The assist rate curve can be changed (or "varied"), for example by switching from curve "a" to "c", etc., using an operator controlled means or switch 69, but the actual setting of assist rate is still based solely on the instantaneous speed of the bicycle and the characteristic curve selected. (Takata column 5, lines 33-38.) At no point does Takata's control algorithm determine a variable rate of change to be applied to the [assist rate]. 1,2
Claim 1 requires that the governing factor limits the motor assistance, and more specifically, is applied to the determined motor assistance for actuating the motor. (See, e.g., Applicant's specification at paragraph [0006].) In the Office Action, it was alleged that Takata's electric motor assist rate corresponds to the claimed governing factor, but it was unclear what the Office considers to correspond to the claimed determined motor assistance. (Office Action at pages 10-11.) As noted above, Takata's motor assist is set directly from the assist rate curve. (Takata column 4, lines 43-57 and Fig. 9.) Takata does not apply this value to any current governing factor, nor does Takata apply its motor assist or any governing factor to a determined motor assistance.
Office Response:
Determine by definition means to “ascertain or establish exactly, typically as a result of research or calculation”. If the assist rate curve can be changed based on the instantaneous speed of the bicycle, then that is determining a variable rate of change.
Electric motor assist is the determined motor assistance. Like applicant states, motor assist is set from the assist rate curve, meaning that the governing factor is applied to the motor assistance.
Footnote 1: The motor is being controlled based on the variable rate of change, please see mapping above. The office respectfully disagrees and maintains the stance that if the assist rate curve can be changed based on the instantaneous speed of the bicycle, then that is determining a variable rate of change.
Footnote 2: Please see mapping for applying the determined variable rate of change to a current governing factor.
Therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments. Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
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 JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights