DETAILED ACTION
The Office Action is in response to Amendments filed 2/18/2026.
Claims 5 and 10 are currently canceled.
Claims 11 and 12 are newly added claims.
Claims 1 and 6 are currently amended.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-12 are currently pending.
The rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 1-4, 6-9, and 11-12 are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-12 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is a process (a series of steps or acts), and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 recites the limitations:
(a) "determining whether or not to rewrite the program thereof based on whether or not a
frequency of rewriting of the program of the first electronic controller is greater than a set value,
and then either rewriting, the program thereof when determines to rewrite the program thereof, or not rewriting, the program thereof when determines not to rewrite the program
thereof;”
(b) “and determining by to determine whether or not to rewrite the program thereof based
on whether or not a frequency of rewriting of the program of is greater than a set value, and
then either rewriting by, program thereof when the second electronic controller determines to
rewrite the program thereof, or not rewriting by, the program”
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
(1) a program of a second electronic controller in a watercraft system, the watercraft system including a first marine propulsion device including the first electronic controller, a second marine propulsion device including the second electronic controller,
(2) and a communication network to connect the first electronic controller and the second electronic controller
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating whether or not to rewrite a program based on the maximum allowed update frequency in a first controller in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to determine whether or not to rewrite a program based on the maximum allowed update frequency in a first controller. And the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating whether or not to rewrite a program based on the maximum allowed update frequency in a second controller in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to determine whether or not to rewrite a program based on the maximum allowed update frequency in a second controller. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) a program of a second electronic controller in a watercraft system, the watercraft system including a first marine propulsion device including the first electronic controller, a second marine propulsion device including the second electronic controller,
(2) and a communication network to connect the first electronic controller and the second electronic controller
The additional elements (1) to (2) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The watercraft system, program, and communication network are used as a tool to perform the determination steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also the claim recites the additional element:
(3) obtaining electronic controller information by a communication protocol different from a rewriting protocol;
(4) transmitting data, which includes a common identifier, with a computer to the first and second electronic controllers for rewriting each of the programs to each of the first and second electronic controllers through the communication network using a rewriting protocol;
The additional elements (3) to (4) are mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/transmitting/outputting, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/transmitting/outputting. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) a program of a second electronic controller in a watercraft system, the watercraft system including a first marine propulsion device including the first electronic controller, a second marine propulsion device including the second electronic controller,
(2) and a communication network to connect the first electronic controller and the second electronic controller
The additional elements (1) to (2) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(3) obtaining electronic controller information by a communication protocol different from a rewriting protocol;
(4) transmitting data, which includes a common identifier, with a computer to the first and second electronic controllers for rewriting each of the programs to each of the first and second electronic controllers through the communication network using a rewriting protocol;
The additional elements (3) to (4) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to obtain electronic controller information and transmit data with a protocol. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, only the idea of a solution or outcome, insignificant extra-solution activities and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 1: Claim 6 is directed to a method, which is a process (a series of steps or acts), and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 6 recites the limitations:
(a) to rewrite a program of the first electronic controller and a program of the second electronic controller;
(b) determine whether or not to rewrite the program thereof based on whether or not a first frequency of rewriting of the program of the first electronic controller is greater than a first set value;
rewrite the program thereof when it is determined to rewrite the program thereof;
refuse to rewrite the program thereof when it is determined not to rewrite the program thereof;
(c) determine whether or not to rewrite the program thereof based on whether or not a second frequency of rewriting of the program of the second electronic controller is greater than a second set value;
rewrite the program thereof when it is determined to rewrite the program thereof; and
refuse to rewrite the program thereof when it is determined not to rewrite the program thereof.
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
(1) A watercraft system comprising: a first marine propulsion device including a first electronic controller; a second marine propulsion device including a second electronic controller; a communication network connecting the first electronic controller and the second electronic controller;
(2) a computer connected to the communication network and configured or programmed
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human rewriting a program of a first and second controller in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to human rewrite a program of a first and second controller. For example, the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating whether or not to rewrite a program based on the maximum allowed update frequency in a first controller in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to determine whether or not to rewrite a program based on the maximum allowed update frequency in a first controller. And the limitation (c) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating whether or not to rewrite a program based on the maximum allowed update frequency in a second controller in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to determine whether or not to rewrite a program based on the maximum allowed update frequency in a second controller. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) A watercraft system comprising: a first marine propulsion device including a first electronic controller; a second marine propulsion device including a second electronic controller; a communication network connecting the first electronic controller and the second electronic controller;
(2) a computer connected to the communication network and configured or programmed
The additional elements (1) to (2) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The watercraft system, program, and communication network are used as a tool to perform the determination steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also the claim recites the additional element:
(3) wherein the computer is configured or programmed to obtain electronic controller information by a communication protocol different from a rewriting protocol;
(4) the computer is configured or programmed to transmit data, which includes a common identifier, for rewriting each of the programs to each of the first and second electronic controllers through the communication network using the rewriting protocol;
(5) the first electronic controller is configured or programmed to: receive the data;
(6) the second electronic controller is configured or programmed to: receive the data;
The additional elements (3) to (6) are mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/transmitting/outputting, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/transmitting/outputting. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) A watercraft system comprising: a first marine propulsion device including a first electronic controller; a second marine propulsion device including a second electronic controller; a communication network connecting the first electronic controller and the second electronic controller;
(2) a computer connected to the communication network and configured or programmed
The additional elements (1) to (2) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(3) wherein the computer is configured or programmed to obtain electronic controller information by a communication protocol different from a rewriting protocol;
(4) the computer is configured or programmed to transmit data, which includes a common identifier, for rewriting each of the programs to each of the first and second electronic controllers through the communication network using the rewriting protocol;
(5) the first electronic controller is configured or programmed to: receive the data;
(6) the second electronic controller is configured or programmed to: receive the data;
The additional elements (3) to (6) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to obtain electronic controller information and transmit data with a protocol. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, only the idea of a solution or outcome, insignificant extra-solution activities and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2 and 7 recite the additional limitation of "determining whether or not each of the first, second, and third electronic controllers is compatible with batch rewriting of the program of the first electronic controller, the program of the second electronic controller, and a program of the third electronic controller with the common identifier;" which is a process that can be practically performed by the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the limitations fall within the "Mental Processes" group of abstract ideas.
The claims recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of “transmitting the data, for rewriting the each of the programs to the each of the first and second electronic controllers, with the common identifier when the first and second electronic controllers are determined to be compatible with the batch rewriting; and transmitting data, for rewriting the program of the third electronic controller to the third electronic controller, with an identifier uniquely assigned to the third electronic controller so as to be different from the common identifier when the third electronic controller is determined to be incompatible with the batch rewriting" which is directed to the insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits upon practicing the abstract idea.
The claims recite an additional element that does not amount to significantly more than
the abstract idea. The claims recite the additional element "transmitting the data, for rewriting
the each of the programs to the each of the first and second electronic controllers, with the
common identifier when the first and second electronic controllers are determined to be
compatible with the batch rewriting; and transmitting data, for rewriting the program of the
third electronic controller to the third electronic controller, with an identifier uniquely assigned
to the third electronic controller so as to be different from the common identifier when the third
electronic controller is determined to be incompatible with the batch rewriting" which has been
determined to be a well-known, routine, and/or conventional activity of transmitting or receiving
data over a network (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Accordingly, the additional elements cannot
provide an inventive concept nor amount to significantly more. Thus, the claims are not patent
eligible.
Claims 3 and 8 further recite the additional limitation "determining whether or not the each of the first, second, and third electronic controllers is compatible with the batch rewriting based on the version of the rewriting protocol thereof' which is a process that can be practically performed by the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the limitations fall within the "Mental Processes" group of abstract ideas.
The claims recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims further recite the additional element of "obtaining a version of the rewriting protocol for each of the programs of the first, second, and third electronic controllers from the each of the first, second, and third electronic controllers;" which is directed to the insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits upon practicing the abstract idea.
The claims recite an additional element that does not amount to significantly more than
the abstract idea. The claims recite the additional element of "obtaining a version of the
rewriting protocol for each of the programs of the first, second, and third electronic controllers
from the each of the first, second, and third electronic controllers;" which has been determined
to be a well-known, routine, and/or conventional activity of transmitting or receiving data over a
network (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Accordingly, the additional elements cannot provide an
inventive concept nor amount to significantly more. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 4 and 9 disclose the limitation "causing to determine whether or not a predetermined rewriting condition is satisfied; to determine to rewrite the program thereof when the predetermined rewriting condition is satisfied; and... to determine not to rewrite the program thereof when the predetermined rewriting condition is not satisfied' is a process that can be practically performed by the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, the limitations fall under the "Mental Processes" group of abstract ideas.
The claims recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element "each of the first and second electronic controllers" which is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generic computer/computing components to apply the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it fails to impose any meaningful limitations upon practicing the abstract idea.
The claims recite an additional element that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims recite the additional element "each of the first and second electronic controllers" is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere generic computer/computing components to apply the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept nor amount to significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 11 and 12 recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements “wherein the computer is configured or programmed to obtain the electronic controller information from each of the first, second, and third electronic controllers; and the electronic controller information of each of the first, second, and third electronic controllers includes the protocol version, the frequency of rewriting the program, and a serial number of each of the first, second, and third electronic controllers” which is directed to the insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits upon practicing the abstract idea.
The claims recite an additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements “wherein the computer is configured or programmed to obtain the electronic controller information from each of the first, second, and third electronic controllers; and the electronic controller information of each of the first, second, and third electronic controllers includes the protocol version, the frequency of rewriting the program, and a serial number of each of the first, second, and third electronic controllers” which has been determined to be a well-known, routine, and/or conventional activity of transmitting or receiving data over a network (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Accordingly, the additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept nor amount to significantly more. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and are allowed if it is rewritten to overcome the 101 rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Argues:
Mental processes are concepts performed in the human mind, and a step or limitation that recites a function performed by a processor (e.g., an electronic controller) that requires action by the processor that cannot be practically applied in the human mind does not recite a mental process. In other words, a processor function that is not practically performed in the human mind is not a mental process.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the applicant’s argument that “a processor (e.g., an electronic controller) that requires action by the processor that cannot be practically applied in the human mind does not recite a mental process” the Examiner asserts that while the claim could provide an improvement to the existing technology the claims, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, still cover a determination process that can be practically performed by the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. Merely reciting the use of one or a processor with no further description on how it contributes to performing a determination does not provide sufficient detail into further patentable subject matter. For the reasons stated above, the rejection with respect to claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are proper and are thus maintained.
Applicant Argues:
Second, MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2160(d)(1) have been amended in accordance with the decision in Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) to emphasize that an improvement in a technical field integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. In the present case, Applicant's claims recite features and method steps that improve, i.e., reduce, the length of time required for rewriting programs of a plurality of electronic controllers in marine propulsion devices. More specifically, Applicant's claimed invention improves the functioning of the computer (e.g., computer 201) and the electronic controllers 17A, 17B, and 17C in order to determine and execute batch rewriting of the computer programs contained in the electronic controllers 17A, 17B, and 17C (see, for example, paragraphs [0029] and [0030] of Applicant's specification). See MPEP § 2106.05(a) "Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field." As explained in, for example, paragraph [0005] of Applicant's specification, prior art computers are configured to rewrite the programs of the electronic control devices separately, which undesirably increases the length of time required for rewriting the programs. Applicant's claimed invention overcomes this prior art problem by, e.g., providing the electronically transmitted data with a common identifier that enables a plurality of electronic controllers to simultaneously rewrite the programs contained therein.
Therefore, even assuming arguendo that any of the method steps or functions recited in Applicant's claims could somehow be performed in the human mind, the binding precedent in Ex Parte Desjardins requires the Examiner to fully consider and acknowledge that any such improvement is evidence that the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the applicant’s argument that “in accordance with the decision in Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) to emphasize that an improvement in a technical field integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. In the present case, Applicant's claims recite features and method steps that improve, i.e., reduce, the length of time required for rewriting programs of a plurality of electronic controllers in marine propulsion devices” examiner asserts that the Ex Parte Desjardins decision describes that a new Artificial Intelligence model cannot be an abstract idea because of its improvement over the current art as a computing component that can continuously learn. The currently recited claims disclose the limitation of “determining…whether to rewrite the program thereof” by “the first controller” and “the second controller”. The additional elements of “the first controller” and “the second controller” is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere generic computer/computing component to apply the abstract idea of determining whether to rewrite the program in the first or second controller based on some set value rather than providing an improvement by reducing, the length of time required for rewriting programs of a plurality of electronic controllers in marine propulsion devices .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Haga (US 20170134164 A1) teaches an update management method that causes an external tool, capable of transmitting an update message to update data such as shared keys within electronic control units (ECUs) making up an onboard network, to update shared keys and the like within the ECUs, while reducing the risk of all ECUs being unauthorizedly rewritten in a case where secret information given to the external tool is leaked. The update management method receives and verifies update authority information indicating authority of the external tool. In a case that an update message instructing updating of shared keys or the like of one or multiple ECUs has been transmitted from the external tool, if the verification is successful and the update authority information indicates that the transmission of the update message is within the range of authority of the external tool, the update is executed at the ECU, and otherwise, update at the ECU is inhibited.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS VIET TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM.
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, Wei Mui can be reached at 571-272-3708. 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.
/T.V.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2191 /WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights