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 .
Examiner’s Note
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 22 May, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 22 May, 2026 is acknowledged and has been entered.
Claim rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 have been overcome in view of the amendment to the claim(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 22 May, 2026 has been fully considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 21, 31-32, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites “the highest value of the N last samples” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 31 recites “an industrial process” which appears to be previously recited in claim 30.
Claim 32 recites “a safety function” which appears to be previously recited as “an external safety function” in claim 30.
Claim 34 recites “a safety function” which appears to be previously recited as “an external safety function” in claim 30.
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) 16, 23-26, 30, 32, and 34-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schindler et al. (US 2022/0063642 A1 “SCHINDLER”), in view of Safavi (US 2010/0158171 A1 “SAFAVI”).
Regarding claim 16, SCHINDLER discloses (Examiner’s note: What SCHINDLER does not disclose is ) a method for operating a position measurement apparatus, comprising:
a measurement signal being received from the position measurement apparatus (the control unit 11 can receive data 2, 3 which allow an inference to be made regarding the own position of the vehicle 10 [0063])
a first variance estimation and a second variance estimation different from the first variance estimation being performed in block 110, determination of first integrity information 5 is carried out on the basis at least of data 2 of at least a first sensor 13 or a first method 4 for determining the integrity information. In block 120, determination of second integrity information 7 is carried out on the basis at least of data 3 of at least a second sensor 14 which is different from the first sensor or a second method 6 which is different from the first method 4 for determining the integrity information [0061]), wherein the first variance estimation yields a first variance estimated value and the second variance estimation yields a second variance estimated value (the integrity information can be a variance and/or a residue of a particular parameter estimation [0025])
a final variance estimated value being determined based on a comparison of the first variance estimated value with the second variance estimated value, wherein the final variance estimated value is set to the first variance estimated value or the second variance estimated value (it could also be provided that only certain integrity information may be considered at times. For example, only integrity information which is at least partly based on vehicle sensor data (which is not GNSS data) could be taken into account at times. This can be carried out, for example, for the length of time during which no or only limited satellite reception is possible [0045]); (in particular that (at times) either the first or the second (or, if applicable, the other) integrity information can be output as a (current) integrity range. This is especially carried out depending on the availability of the corresponding sensor information [0047])
and a confidence interval being determined based on the final variance estimated value (in addition, the (first and/or second) integrity information may (alternatively) also be information which is determined depending on a variance and/or a residue and/or a (different) indicator of the trustworthiness of the estimation. For example, the first integrity information can be a first confidence range, and the second integrity information can be a second confidence range [0025]), wherein the confidence interval is output to control an external safety function and/or to control an industrial process (it is suggested that the method is used for determining an integrity range of a parameter estimation of a driving operation parameter of a motor vehicle. The driving operation parameter is usually a safety-critical or safety-relevant parameter of the driving operation of a motor vehicle. Preferably, the driving operation parameter is a (safety-critical or safety-relevant) parameter of the driving operation of a motor vehicle which operates (or is operated) at least partially automatically or even autonomously [0026])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SAFAVI teaches systems and methods for estimating noise variance [0028]. Module 808 implements equation 7 by providing an estimate on the per-sub-carrier decision-directed noise samples and their variance. Both short-term (per symbol) and long term (per packet), variances are computed [0093].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of SCHINDLER to include the teachings of SAFAVI, because doing so would improve error correction and signal processing accuracy, as recognized by SAFAVI.
Regarding claim 23, SCHINDLER/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 18, wherein the final variance estimated value is determined based on a plausibility check (in step c) a (cross) plausibility check of the first protection level with the second protection level and/or vice versa can be carried out. Furthermore, a (cross) plausibility check of the first protection level and/or the second protection level can be carried out with another (third) protection level and/or vice versa [SCHINDLER 0034]), wherein the plausibility check comprises: when it is determined that a current value of the measurement noise signal is greater than a predefined threshold value, the first variance estimated value is compared to the second variance estimated value; and when it is determined that the first variance estimated value is larger in amount than the second variance estimated value, the final variance estimated value is set to the first variance estimated value. Examiner’s note: It is further noted that claim 23 recites a method. Limitation “when it is determined that a current value of the measurement noise signal is greater than a predefined threshold value, the first variance estimated value is compared to the second variance estimated value; and when it is determined that the first variance estimated value is larger in amount than the second variance estimated value, the final variance estimated value is set to the first variance estimated value” contains contingent claim language. See MPEP 2111.04. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the method claim requires step (i.e. “the first variance estimated value is compared to the second variance estimated value”) if a condition (i.e. “when it is determined that a current value of the measurement noise signal is greater than a predefined threshold value; and when it is determined that the first variance estimated value is larger in amount than the second variance estimated value, the final variance estimated value is set to the first variance estimated value”) happens. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
Regarding claim 24, SCHINDLER/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 23, wherein the threshold value is determined depending on the final variance estimation. Examiner’s note: It is further noted that claim 24 recites a method. Although claim 24 recites additional elements, the claim as a whole still depends on the full scope of claim 23 which encompasses the contingency from claim 23. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
Regarding claim 25, SCHINDLER/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 18, wherein the final variance estimated value is determined based on a weighting of the first and second variance estimated value, wherein the weighting is determined in dependence on which of the first and second variance estimated value is larger in amount (it is proposed that in step c) a weighting of the first integrity information and the second integrity information is carried out. This allows the special advantage that the fusion can be improved depending on the situation [SCHINDLER 0041]).
Regarding claim 26, SCHINDLER/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein the estimation of the measurement noise signal comprises estimating a useful signal associated with the measurement signal and determining the estimated measurement noise signal based on the measurement signal and the estimated useful signal (systems and methods for estimating noise variance [SAFAVI 0028]. Module 808 implements equation 7 by providing an estimate on the per-sub-carrier decision-directed noise samples and their variance. Both short-term (per symbol) and long term (per packet), variances are computed [SAFAVI 0093], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 16).
Regarding claim 30, SCHINDLER discloses a position measurement apparatus comprising: a sensor for generating a measurement signal (a first sensor 13; a second sensor 14 [0061]); and an estimation module (the control unit 11 [0063]) that is configured to:
perform a first variance estimation and a second variance estimation different from the first variance estimation in block 110, determination of first integrity information 5 is carried out on the basis at least of data 2 of at least a first sensor 13 or a first method 4 for determining the integrity information. In block 120, determination of second integrity information 7 is carried out on the basis at least of data 3 of at least a second sensor 14 which is different from the first sensor or a second method 6 which is different from the first method 4 for determining the integrity information [0061]), wherein the first variance estimation yields a first variance estimated value and the second variance estimation yields a second variance estimated value (the integrity information can be a variance and/or a residue of a particular parameter estimation [0025])
determine a final variance estimated value based on a comparison of the first variance estimated value with the second variance estimated value, wherein the final variance estimated value is set to the first variance estimated value or the second variance estimated value (it could also be provided that only certain integrity information may be considered at times. For example, only integrity information which is at least partly based on vehicle sensor data (which is not GNSS data) could be taken into account at times. This can be carried out, for example, for the length of time during which no or only limited satellite reception is possible [0045]); (in particular that (at times) either the first or the second (or, if applicable, the other) integrity information can be output as a (current) integrity range. This is especially carried out depending on the availability of the corresponding sensor information [0047])
and determine a confidence interval based on the final variance estimated value (in addition, the (first and/or second) integrity information may (alternatively) also be information which is determined depending on a variance and/or a residue and/or a (different) indicator of the trustworthiness of the estimation. For example, the first integrity information can be a first confidence range, and the second integrity information can be a second confidence range [0025]), wherein the confidence interval is output by the estimation module to control an external safety function and/or to control an industrial process (it is suggested that the method is used for determining an integrity range of a parameter estimation of a driving operation parameter of a motor vehicle. The driving operation parameter is usually a safety-critical or safety-relevant parameter of the driving operation of a motor vehicle. Preferably, the driving operation parameter is a (safety-critical or safety-relevant) parameter of the driving operation of a motor vehicle which operates (or is operated) at least partially automatically or even autonomously [0026])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SAFAVI teaches systems and methods for estimating noise variance [0028]. Module 808 implements equation 7 by providing an estimate on the per-sub-carrier decision-directed noise samples and their variance. Both short-term (per symbol) and long term (per packet), variances are computed [0093].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of SCHINDLER to include the teachings of SAFAVI, because doing so would improve error correction and signal processing accuracy, as recognized by SAFAVI.
Regarding claim 32, SCHINDLER/ SAFAVI discloses the position measurement apparatus according to claim 30, wherein the confidence interval is output by the estimation module and is used in a safety function (it is suggested that the method is used for determining an integrity range of a parameter estimation of a driving operation parameter of a motor vehicle. The driving operation parameter is usually a safety-critical or safety-relevant parameter of the driving operation of a motor vehicle. Preferably, the driving operation parameter is a (safety-critical or safety-relevant) parameter of the driving operation of a motor vehicle which operates (or is operated) at least partially automatically or even autonomously [SCHINDLER 0026], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 30).
Regarding claim 34, SCHINDLER/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein the confidence interval is output and is used in a safety function (it is suggested that the method is used for determining an integrity range of a parameter estimation of a driving operation parameter of a motor vehicle. The driving operation parameter is usually a safety-critical or safety-relevant parameter of the driving operation of a motor vehicle. Preferably, the driving operation parameter is a (safety-critical or safety-relevant) parameter of the driving operation of a motor vehicle which operates (or is operated) at least partially automatically or even autonomously [SCHINDLER 0026], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 16).
Regarding claim 35, SCHINDLER/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein the final variance estimated value is set to the one of the first or the second variance estimated value that is larger in amount (it could also be provided that only certain integrity information may be considered at times. For example, only integrity information which is at least partly based on vehicle sensor data (which is not GNSS data) could be taken into account at times. This can be carried out, for example, for the length of time during which no or only limited satellite reception is possible [SCHINDLER 0045]); (in particular that (at times) either the first or the second (or, if applicable, the other) integrity information can be output as a (current) integrity range. This is especially carried out depending on the availability of the corresponding sensor information [SCHINDLER 0047], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 16).
Regarding claim 36, SCHINDLER/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 24, wherein the predefined threshold value is set to a multiple of the square root of the final variance estimated value. Examiner’s note: It is further noted that claim 36 recites a method. Although claim 36 recites additional elements, the claim as a whole still depends on the full scope of claim 23 which encompasses the contingency from claim 23. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHINDLER, in view of SAFAVI, and further in view of Ahsan et al. (US 2011/0060976 A1 “AHSAN”).
Regarding claim 18, SCHINDLER/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 16,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, AHSAN teaches that a method of processing signal data may comprise receiving signal data, calculating a first k-th moment from the signal data based on a first number of samples N1, calculating a second k-th moment from the signal data based on a second number of samples N2, the first number N1 being different than the second number N2 [0040].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of SCHINDLER to include the teachings of AHSAN, because it is merely applying a known signal processing technique to a known variance determination method, with each component operating according to its established function and producing predictable result of two variance estimates based on different number of samples.
Regarding claim 19, SCHINDLER/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 16,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, AHSAN teaches that a method of processing signal data may comprise receiving signal data, calculating a first k-th moment from the signal data based on a first number of samples N1, calculating a second k-th moment from the signal data based on a second number of samples N2, the first number N1 being different than the second number N2 [0040].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of SCHINDLER to include the teachings of AHSAN, because it is merely applying a known signal processing technique to a known variance determination method, with each component operating according to its established function and producing predictable result of two variance estimates based on different number of samples. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SCHINDLER to include fewer than 20 samples of the measurement noise signal, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 20, SCHINDLER/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 16,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, AHSAN teaches that a method of processing signal data may comprise receiving signal data, calculating a first k-th moment from the signal data based on a first number of samples N1, calculating a second k-th moment from the signal data based on a second number of samples N2, the first number N1 being different than the second number N2 [0040].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of SCHINDLER to include the teachings of AHSAN, because it is merely applying a known signal processing technique to a known variance determination method, with each component operating according to its established function and producing predictable result of two variance estimates based on different number of samples. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SCHINDLER to include more than 20 samples of the measurement noise signal, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHINDLER, in view of SAFAVI, and further in view of Simonson et al. (US 8,103,116 B1 “SIMONSON”).
Regarding claim 21, SCHINDLER/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 16,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SIMONSON teaches that the combination of the spatial error estimates and the temporal error estimates comprises using a larger value between the spatial error estimates and the temporal error estimates [claim 6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of SCHINDLER to include the teachings of SIMONSON, because doing so would improve data processing while accounting for errors, as recognized by SIMONSON.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHINDLER, in view of SAFAVI, and further in view of Pachner (US 2008/0071395 A1 “PACHNER”).
Regarding claim 22, SCHINDLER/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 16,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, PACHNER teaches that the control system including a process model, a number of process variables and manipulated variables, and a number of constraints, the controller comprising: a means for predicting future expectations and variances based on one or more parameters received from a process model of the control system [claim 15].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of SCHINDLER to include the teachings of PACHNER, because doing so would improve accuracy and optimize solution, as recognized by PACHNER.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHINDLER, in view of SAFAVI, and further in view of Abrishamkar et al. (US 2004/0179496 A1 “ABRISHAMKAR”).
Regarding claim 27, SCHINDLER/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 26,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ABRISHAMKAR teaches that a method for estimating a pilot signal using a PEM-switched double IIR. The input signal is fed 802 into both IIR filters. The IIR filters each determine 804 a filtered estimate and a prediction error. The prediction errors are used 806 to drive the switching mechanism [0070].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of SCHINDLER to include the teachings of ABRISHAMKAR, because doing so would improve signal processing, as recognized by ABRISHAMKAR.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHINDLER, in view of SAFAVI, and further in view of Troost (US 2018/0372885 A1 “TROOST”).
Regarding claim 28, SCHINDLER/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 16,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, TROOST teaches that when a FIR filter is used the results of the variance measurement are significantly improved if the coefficients of the high-pass filter are dependent on the sampling rate with which the measurement signal is acquired [0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of SCHINDLER to include the teachings of TROOST, because doing so would improve measurement accuracy, as recognized by TROOST.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHINDLER, in view of SAFAVI, and further in view of Wang (US 2009/0326740 A1 “WANG”).
Regarding claim 29, SCHINDLER/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 16,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, WANG teaches that the Kalman filter is a recursive minimum-variance estimation algorithm that computes an estimate of a state vector based on constructed measurements [0100].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of SCHINDLER to include the teachings of WANG, because doing so would improve signal processing, as recognized by WANG.
Claim(s) 31 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHINDLER, in view of SAFAVI, and further in view of Martini (US 2005/0288892 A1 “MARTINI”).
Regarding claim 31, SCHINDLER/ SAFAVI discloses the position measurement apparatus according to claim 30,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, MARTINI relates to the control of industrial processes, and in particular a method and a system for the control of an industrial process based on an examination of observed variables obtained from a sample of products which are indicative of the properties of the product generated by the process and correlated with the set process parameters [0001]. Specifically, MARTINI teaches that the method to which the invention relates is based on the determination of an admissible interval of values for the power (technically a Confidence Interval) having a confidence level or degree of reliability [0070].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of SCHINDLER to include the teachings of MARTINI, because doing so would enable quality control and improve data processing, as recognized by MARTINI.
Regarding claim 33, SCHINDLER/ SAFAVI discloses the position measurement apparatus according to claim 31, wherein the confidence interval is output by the estimation module to control the industrial process (the control of industrial processes, and in particular a method and a system for the control of an industrial process based on an examination of observed variables obtained from a sample of products which are indicative of the properties of the product generated by the process and correlated with the set process parameters [MARTINI 0001], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 31).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Metzger et al. (US 2022/0128705 A1) is cited as pertinent art for the disclosure of ascertaining at least one piece of integrity information relating to a location result of a GNSS-based location device of a vehicle in the event of an abruptly and significantly changing GNSS reception situation, comprising at least the following steps: (a) ascertaining the current ego position of the vehicle by means of the GNSS-based location device; (b) ascertaining at least one piece of integrity information relating to the ego position ascertained in step (a), by means of the GNSS-based location device; (c) detecting an abruptly and significantly changing or significantly altered GNSS reception situation; and (d) adapting the ascertainment of the at least one piece of integrity information for the changing or altered GNSS reception situation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 July 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights