DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed February 10, 2024 has been entered.
Claim 1-2, 6-7, 11-12, and 18-19 are amended.
Claim 21 is new
Claims 1-21 are pending this application
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-5, 11-17, and 20 is/are drawn to device (i.e., a manufacture), 6-10, and 18-19 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process). As such, claims 1-20 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Representative Claim 1: An information processing device, comprising:
a control unit configured to perform the following: acquiring data of one or more items related to a positioning result by a positioning operation unit that performs satellite positioning and to an accuracy of the positioning result;
and judging that the positioning result is valid when the data of the one or more items meet respective predetermined criteria and outputting the positioning result as valid, wherein the one or more items are not changed depending on a usage type of the positioning result,
and the respective predetermined criteria are determined in accordance with the usage type of the positioning result, and wherein the predetermined criteria include a criterion value by which the control unit judges that the criterion is met regardless of a content of the data.
(Examiner notes: The underlined claim terms above are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea and are further analyzed under Step 2A - Prong Two)
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps of: An information processing device, comprising: a control unit configured to perform the following: acquiring data of one or more items related to a positioning result by a positioning operation unit that performs satellite positioning and to an accuracy of the positioning result; and judging that the positioning result is valid when the data of the one or more items meet respective predetermined criteria and outputting the positioning result as valid, wherein the one or more items are not changed depending on a usage type of the positioning result, and the respective predetermined criteria are determined in accordance with the usage type of the positioning result, and wherein the predetermined criteria include a criterion value by which the control unit judges that the criterion is met regardless of a content of the data (i.e., mathematical relationships), then it also falls within the “Mental Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Further, the steps of determining one or more positioning result; usage type of positioning; and criteria of content data (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), then it also falls within the “Mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent Claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-20 further narrow the abstract idea by performing correction of time displayed information, measurement value of a pressure sensor, validating horizontal movement, and storing predetermined criteria (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), then it also falls within the “Mental Processes” and is an abstract idea and then it also falls within the “Mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas and then also falls within the “Mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Independent claim(s) 1, 6, and 11 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 11 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Under Step 2A Prong 2 the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A - Prong Two: In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “processing device”, “control unit,” and a “sensor,” etc. (Claim 1, 6, and 11) is/are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Similarly, the limitations of applying “processing device”, “control unit,” and a “sensor,” etc. (Independent Claim(s) 1, 6, and 11, and dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-20 are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components in a sensor. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computerized environments (e.g., indicating, adjusting, linking, sampling, positioning, etc. steps performed by a predictive model, machine learning algorithms, a communication interface, a memory, a processor, a computational device etc.). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The recited additional element(s) of An information processing device, comprising: a control unit configured to perform the following: acquiring data of one or more items related to a positioning result by a positioning operation unit that performs satellite positioning and to an accuracy of the positioning result; and judging that the positioning result is valid when the data of the one or more items meet respective predetermined criteria and outputting the positioning result as valid, wherein the one or more items are not changed depending on a usage type of the positioning result, and the respective predetermined criteria are determined in accordance with the usage type of the positioning result, and wherein the predetermined criteria include a criterion value by which the control unit judges that the criterion is met regardless of a content of the data (Claim(s) 1, 6, and 11), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claim 2-5, 7-10, and 12-20, fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the identified additional elements in independent claim(s) 1,6, and 11, and dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-20 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The recited additional element(s) of information processing device (Claim(s) 1, 6, and 11), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea) i.e. meeting a predetermined criteria (i.e. presenting data based on a threshold) is similar to “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here) (See MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)).
This conclusion is based on a factual determination. Applicant’s own disclosure at paragraph [0003] acknowledges that “technology that uses a combination of satellite positioning and dead reckoning in which a vehicle speed sensor, and an orientation sensor are used to calculate the movement amount and movement direction of the device itself in tracking the current position” (i.e. conventional nature of satellite data for a sensor). This additional element therefore do not ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
The dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-20 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al (US 2018/0356534 A1) in view of Fukushima et al (US 5293318 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Sugiyama discloses information processing device, comprising [0082-0083 for processing device]:
a positioning operation unit that performs satellite positioning [0084-0085 for judging criteria for kind of behaviors, direction changes, starting stopping, accelerations];
a control unit configured to perform the following [0081-0083 for control means]:
acquiring a positioning result and data of one or more items related to an accuracy of the positioning result from the positioning operation unit [0081-0083 for getting GPS, and sensor data];
and judging that the positioning result is valid when the data of the one or more items meet respective predetermined criteria and outputting the positioning result as valid [0083 for determining linear movement (positioning criteria) 0089 for increasing positional precision],
wherein the positioning result has a plurality of different usage types [0083 for behavior (usages) of running, sleeping, walking)],
wherein the one or more items are common among the plurality of different usage types, [0083 for user behavior and types of motion (usage)],
and the respective predetermined criteria are set in accordance with the usage type of the positioning result [0083-0085 for detecting types of movement (usage)].
Sugiyama fails to explicitly teach and wherein at least part of the predetermined criteria for at least one of the plurality of different usage types include a criterion value by which the control unit judges that the criterion is met regardless of a content of the data so that the corresponding one or more items are not considered in judging whether the positioning result is valid for said at least one of the different usage types.
Fukushima has a navigation system on an automobile has a GPS receiver for producing first positional data indicating the automobile position based on radio waves from GPS satellites (abstract) and teaches and wherein at least part of the predetermined criteria for at least one of the plurality of different usage types include a criterion value by which the control unit judges that the criterion is met regardless of a content of the data so that the corresponding one or more items are not considered in judging whether the positioning result is valid for said at least one of the different usage types [col 6, lines 1-45 for having a PDOP threshold value for determining the difference (position result) between previous and present position data based on threshold values].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the sensor determining position techniques, as disclosed by Sugiyama, further including the threshold calculations as taught by Fukushima for the purpose to determine whether the position is changed abruptly or not (Fukushima, col 6, lines 30-45).
Regarding Claim 6, Sugiyama discloses method executed by a control unit in an information processing device, that includes a positioning operation unit that performs satellite positioning comprising [0082-0083 for processing device]:
acquiring a positioning result and data of one or more items related to an accuracy of the positioning result from the positioning operation unit [0081-0083 for getting GPS, and sensor data];
and judging that the positioning result is valid when the data of the one or more items meet respective predetermined criteria and outputting the positioning result as valid [0083 for determining linear movement (positioning criteria) 0089 for increasing positional precision],
wherein the positioning result has a plurality of different usage types [0083 for behavior (usages) of running, sleeping, walking)],
wherein the one or more items are common among the plurality of different usage types, [0083 for user behavior and types of motion (usage)],
and the respective predetermined criteria are determined in accordance with the usage type of the positioning result [0083-0085 for detecting types of movement (usage)].
Sugiyama fails to explicitly teach and wherein at least part of the predetermined criteria for at least one of the plurality of different usage types include a criterion value by which the control unit judges that the criterion is met regardless of a content of the data so that the corresponding one or more items are not considered in judging whether the positioning result is valid for said at least one of the different usage types.
Fukushima has a navigation system on an automobile has a GPS receiver for producing first positional data indicating the automobile position based on radio waves from GPS satellites (abstract) and teaches and wherein at least part of the predetermined criteria for at least one of the plurality of different usage types include a criterion value by which the control unit judges that the criterion is met regardless of a content of the data so that the corresponding one or more items are not considered in judging whether the positioning result is valid for said at least one of the different usage types [col 6, lines 1-45 for having a PDOP threshold value for determining the difference (position result) between previous and present position data based on threshold values].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the sensor determining position techniques, as disclosed by Sugiyama, further including the threshold calculations as taught by Fukushima for the purpose to determine whether the position is changed abruptly or not (Fukushima, col 6, lines 30-45).
Regarding Claim 11, Sugiyama discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program executable by at least one processor in an information processing device that includes a positioning operation unit that performs satellite positioning, the program causing the at least one processor to perform the following [0081-0083 for control and processing means]:
acquiring a positioning result and data of one or more items related to an accuracy of the positioning result from the positioning operation unit [0081-0083 for getting GPS, and sensor data];
and judging that the positioning result is valid when the data of the one or more items meet respective predetermined criteria and outputting the positioning result as valid [0083 for determining linear movement (positioning criteria) 0089 for increasing positional precision],
wherein the positioning result has a plurality of different usage types [0083 for behavior (usages) of running, sleeping, walking)],
wherein the one or more items are common among the plurality of different usage types [0083 for user behavior and types of motion (usage)],
and the respective predetermined criteria are set in accordance with the usage type of the positioning result [0083-0085 for detecting types of movement (usage)].
Sugiyama fails to explicitly teach and wherein at least part of the predetermined criteria for at least one of the plurality of different usage types include a criterion value by which the control unit judges that the criterion is met regardless of a content of the data so that the corresponding one or more items are not considered in judging whether the positioning result is valid for said at least one of the different usage types.
Fukushima has a navigation system on an automobile has a GPS receiver for producing first positional data indicating the automobile position based on radio waves from GPS satellites (abstract) and teaches and wherein at least part of the predetermined criteria for at least one of the plurality of different usage types include a criterion value by which the control unit judges that the criterion is met regardless of a content of the data so that the corresponding one or more items are not considered in judging whether the positioning result is valid for said at least one of the different usage types [col 6, lines 1-45 for having a PDOP threshold value for determining the difference (position result) between previous and present position data based on threshold values].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the sensor determining position techniques, as disclosed by Sugiyama, further including the threshold calculations as taught by Fukushima for the purpose to determine whether the position is changed abruptly or not (Fukushima, col 6, lines 30-45).
Regarding Claim 2, 7, and 12, Sugiyama discloses the usage type includes at least one of [0074]:
a user activity type related to a movement of the information processing device due to the user activity type [0073-0077],
acquisition of a movement log [0105 for chronologically storing positional information],
correction of a time being displayed on the information processing device, and correction of an altitude calculated from a measurement value of a barometric pressure sensor [0075 getting altitude from atmospheric (barometric) pressure sensor].
Regarding Claim 3, 8, and 13, Sugiyama discloses the user activity type includes swimming, and wherein during swimming [0083],
a criterion for determining a validity of horizontal movement determined by the positioning result is set to be stricter than a criterion for determining a validity of horizontal movement for another user activity [0083-0085 for determining linear motion and acceleration].
Regarding Claim 4, 9, and 15, Sugiyama discloses the predetermined criteria are determined in accordance with the usage type and an acquisition status of the positioning result [0073-0077, and 0131],
and wherein the acquisition status includes a continuing status of successful positioning by the positioning operation unit and information on success or failure of previous positioning by the positioning operation unit [0073-0077, and 0140-0141].
Regarding Claim 5, 10, and 15, Sugiyama discloses a storage unit that stores the predetermined criteria in association with the usage type [0098-0101],
wherein the control unit reads out the predetermined criteria from the storage unit in accordance with the usage type and applies the read out predetermined criteria in the judging [0098-0101].
Regrading Claim 16, 18, and 20, Sugiyama teaches the one or more items include one or more of PDOP (Position Dilution of Precision), HDOP (Horizontal Dilution of Precision), VDOP (Vertical Dilution of Precision), ground speed of the device, GST 2D, GST altitude, and a positioning OK count that indicates how many successful positioning occurred consecutively [0074 for getting altitude information with 0081 for speed information for the watch (device)].
Regrading Claim 17, and 19, Sugiyama teaches the one or more items include all of ground speed of the device, GST 2D, GST altitude, and a positioning OK count that indicates how many successful positioning occurred consecutively [0074 for getting altitude information with 0081 for speed information for the watch (device) and 0128 for using autocorrelations to improve calculation precision (successful positioning)].
Fukushima has a navigation system on an automobile has a GPS receiver for producing first positional data indicating the automobile position based on radio waves from GPS satellites (abstract) and teaches one or more items include one or more of PDOP (Position Dilution of Precision), HDOP (Horizontal Dilution of Precision), VDOP (Vertical Dilution of Precision) [col 6, lines 1-45 for having a PDOP threshold value for determining the difference (position result) between previous and present position data based on threshold values].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the sensor determining position techniques, as disclosed by Sugiyama, further including the threshold calculations as taught by Fukushima for the purpose to determine whether the position is changed abruptly or not (Fukushima, col 6, lines 30-45).
Regarding Claim 21, Sugiyama fails to explicitly teach a maximum value or a minimum value that can be calculated by the positioning operation unit is set, in said at least part of the predetermined criteria, as said criterion value that causes the control unit to judge that the criterion is met.
Fukushima has a navigation system on an automobile has a GPS receiver for producing first positional data indicating the automobile position based on radio waves from GPS satellites (abstract) and a maximum value or a minimum value that can be calculated by the positioning operation unit is set, in said at least part of the predetermined criteria, as said criterion value that causes the control unit to judge that the criterion is met [col 6, lines 1-45 for having a PDOP threshold value for determining the difference (position result) between previous and present position data based on threshold values (maximums and minimums)].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the sensor determining position techniques, as disclosed by Sugiyama, further including the threshold calculations as taught by Fukushima for the purpose to determine whether the position is changed abruptly or not (Fukushima, col 6, lines 30-45).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been considered but
are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In applicant’s arguments page 11, second paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that the claim objections for claims 17 and 19 have different scopes. The examiner appreciates the amendments to claims 18 and 19.
In applicant’s arguments page 14, first paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that the applicant added the positioning operation unit to address the USC 101 rejection. The examiner appreciates the addition of the positioning operation unit, however, the independent claims acquire data, compare data with threshold values, and output judgements, purely mathematical steps without tying the steps toa specific technical improvement, physical transformation, or concrete real world result (see Alice/Mayo) where a claim directed to mathematical calculations or data processing must integrate those steps into a practical application that imposes meaningful limits beyond the abstract idea.
In applicant’s arguments page 15, fourth paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Sugiyama does not teach the new features of claims 1, 6, and 11. The examiner respectfully disagrees, reference Fukushima addresses the accuracy of satellite positioning determination [Fukushima, col 6, lines 1-45].
In applicant’s arguments page 16, third paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that the independent claims are allowable. The examiner appreciates the amendments to claims 1, 6, and 11 have been rejected with both Sugiyama and Fukushima. The new features of satellite positioning accuracy with PDOP and both X, Y (horizontal and vertical) distance thresholds are also addressed [Fukushima, col 6, lines 5-65].
The examiner acknowledges that this is a broader interpretation than Applicant’s.
However, examiners are not only allowed to apply broad interpretations, but are required to do so, as it reduces the possibility that the claims, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. MPEP §2111. Patentability is determined by the “broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification” (MPEP §2111), not the narrowest reasonable interpretation. And Applicant does not have an explicit lexicographical statement in line with MPEP §2111.01
subsection IV requiring a specific interpretation of the relevant phrases which forces the examiner to interpret them only one way.
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
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 SAMARINA MAKHDOOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursdays from 8:30 to 5:30 pm eastern time.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on 571-272-7753 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.
/SAMARINA MAKHDOOM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648