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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 12/21/2023, 08/30/2024, 05/23/2025, and 06/27/2025 has been acknowledged
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GM-50128/2012, filed on 06/24/2021.
Status of Application
Claims 1-18 were pending.
Claims 1 is the independent claims.
Claims 19-23 have been added.
Claims 1-23 are pending
This Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 03/02/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 9, 13-16, 18, and 20 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-5580095 (“Fukumoto”) in view of US-6619693-B1 to Sproatt et. al. (“Sproatt”).
Regarding claim 1, Fukumoto teaches a method for supporting a carrier vehicle of a lifting device having a support system (Fukumoto Fig. 1 and ref 5), the carrier vehicle being parked on a piece of ground, (Fukumoto Fig. 4 & 5), wherein the support system includes:
supporting legs (Fukumoto ref 7), for supporting the carrier vehicle on the piece of ground, the supporting legs each having a vertically adjustable length (Fukumoto ref 7a),
a controller for actuating drives of the supporting legs using control commands, (Fukumoto ref 10) and
an inclination sensor for detecting an inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device relative to a predefined spatial direction and/or spatial plane, (Fukumoto ref 13 & 14)
wherein the method comprises: calculating a sequence of control commands for a activation of individual drives of all of the supporting legs of the support system based on a currently detected inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device (Fukumoto ref 202 and col 3 lines 50-54 “sets an operation time t.sub.1 of each control valve 15, which is provided on each jack cylinder 7, in a step 202,”)
leveling the carrier vehicle and/or the lifting device by activating the drives of the supporting legs of all of the support system using the sequence of control commands to reduce the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device relative to the predefined spatial direction and/or spatial plane, (Fukumoto ref 203 and col 3 lines 50-54 “operates each control valve 15 for a period of t.sub.1 seconds in a step 203.”)
wherein, a activation of individual drives of all of the supporting legs of the support system is effected using the sequence of control commands and control pulses (Fukumoto Fig. 5),
effecting a repetition of the calculating and the leveling in a loop (Fukumoto Fig. 5) until the detected inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device reaches or falls below a predefined threshold value to minimize the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or the lifting device (Fukumoto Fig. 5 ref. 201).
Fukumoto does not teach a sequential and time-limited activation of individual drives of all supporting legs of the support system. However, Sproatt teaches a sequential and time-limited activation of individual drives of all supporting legs of the support system (Sproatt Background (9) “The method for leveling the vehicle includes sequentially actuating the legs so that they move from their stowed position to their extended position… controller individually actuates the legs at the low end of the vehicle by individually extending each of the legs for a predetermined period of time.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the apparatus of Fukumoto to incorporate the teachings of Sproatt such that the system includes a sequential and time-limited activation of individual drives of all supporting legs of the support system. Doing so would allow for leveling of a vehicle on uneven terrain (Sproatt Background (2)).
Regarding claim 5, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches that the time-limited activation of the individual drives of all of the supporting legs of the support system using the sequence of control commands (Fukumoto ref 202 and 205) is performed using control pulses with variable pulse duration (Fukumoto ref t.sub.1 & t.sub.2).
Regarding claim 6, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 5. Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt does not teach that a pulse duration of the control pulses is 0.05 seconds to 3.50 seconds.
Nevertheless, Fukumoto at least suggests the idea that the pulse duration of the control pulses is in seconds (Fukumoto col 3 lines 50-64). Further, the “mere scaling up” or “limitations relating to the size” or “recitation of relative dimensions” are generally not patentably distinguishable from a prior art device with both functioning in the same manner. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve such parameters of the pulse duration in order to level the vehicle body on an inclined place in a short period of time (Fukumoto Abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches that a variation of the pulse duration and a temporal overlap between successive control pulses is performed based on at least one of: parameters of the drives of the supporting legs, parameters of a geometry of the supporting legs, parameters of a position of the supporting legs, a number of supporting legs, the currently detected inclination of the carrier vehicle of the lifting device, a currently predefined pulse duration, a position of axles of the carrier vehicle, a position of the lifting device arranged on the carrier vehicle, a torsional and bending stiffness and/or a twisting of the carrier vehicle, and the predefined spatial direction and/or spatial plane. (Fukumoto Fig. 5 ref 202 and 205 and col 6 lines 21-25).
Regarding claim 9, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches that the length of each of the supporting legs is made larger and/or smaller during the activating of the drives of the supporting legs of the support system. (Fukumoto Claim 1 "a controller for calculating extension/contraction amounts of said piston rods of said jack cylinders and controlling control valves provided on said jack cylinders in accordance with results of calculation.").
Regarding claim 13, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches a computer program product embodied on a non-transitory compute readable medium, the computer program product comprising commands which, when executed by a processor, prompt the processor to execute the method according to claim 1 from a storage unit which to be brought into data connection with the processor. (Fukumoto Fig. 4 ref 103, program is executed by controller).
Regarding claim 14, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches a controller (Fukumoto ref. 10) for controlling a support system for carrying out the method according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: calculate a sequence of control commands for the sequential and time-limited activation of individual drives of all of the supporting legs of the support system on the basis of a currently detected inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device, and in an actuate the drives of all of the supporting legs of the support system using the sequence of control commands for reducing the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device relative to the predefined spatial direction and/or spatial plane, wherein the sequential and time-limited activation of individual drives of all of the supporting legs of the support system is effected using the sequence of control commands control pulses, and repeatedly performing in a loop the calculation of the sequence of control commands and the actuation of the drives of all of the supporting legs of the support system using the sequence of control commands until the detected inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device reaches or falls below a predefined or predefinable threshold value, so as to minimize the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device. (Fukumoto Fig. 4 & 5, the control programs are being operated by the controller).
Regarding claim 15, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches a vehicle (Fukumoto Fig. 1), comprising the controller (Fukumoto ref. 10) according to claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 6. Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt does not teach that the pulse duration of the control pulses is 0.25 seconds to 1.5 seconds.
Nevertheless, Fukumoto at least suggests the idea that the pulse duration of the control pulses is in seconds (Fukumoto col 3 lines 50-64). Further, the “mere scaling up” or “limitations relating to the size” or “recitation of relative dimensions” are generally not patentably distinguishable from a prior art device with both functioning in the same manner. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve such parameters of the pulse duration in order to level the vehicle body on an inclined place in a short period of time (Fukumoto Abstract).
Regarding claim 18, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 14. Fukumoto further discloses that the vehicle is a carrier vehicle with a lifting device (Fukumoto Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1. Fukumoto further discloses detecting an inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device relative to a predefined or predefinable spatial direction and/or spatial plane (Fukumoto Background (13) “a two-axis inclination detector for detecting inclinations of the vehicle body in the front to rear and left to right directions thereof,”), wherein the currently detected inclination comprises the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device immediately prior to or during the calculating of the sequence of control commands (Fukumoto Fig. 5), wherein the effecting a repetition comprises effecting a repetition of the detecting, calculating and the leveling in a loop until the detected inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device reaches or falls below the predefined threshold value (Fukumoto Fig. 5); and wherein, during each repetition of the loop, the sequence of control commands is calculated based on the respective detected inclination, and a actuation of each of the individual drives of the supporting legs is performed (Fukumoto Fig. 5).
Sproatt further discloses a time of actuation of each of the individual drives of the supporting legs that is performed separately in a sequence (Sproatt Background (9) “The method for leveling the vehicle includes sequentially actuating the legs so that they move from their stowed position to their extended position… controller individually actuates the legs at the low end of the vehicle by individually extending each of the legs for a predetermined period of time.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the apparatus of Fukumoto to incorporate the teachings of Sproatt such that the system includes a time of actuation of each of the individual drives of the supporting legs that is performed separately in a sequence. Doing so would allow for leveling of a vehicle on uneven terrain (Sproatt Background (2)).
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto in view of Sproatt, further in view of US-20090244279 (“Walsh”).
Regarding claim 2, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt does not teach wherein, after minimizing of the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device has been effected, monitoring by continuously detecting the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device relative to the predefined spatial direction and/or spatial plane. However, Walsh teaches that after after minimizing of the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device has been effected, monitoring by continuously detecting the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device relative to the predefined spatial direction and/or spatial plane. (Walsh [0009] "leveling system controlling the jack drive to level the vehicle continuously during surveillance for maintaining the extended mast within a predescribed range").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt to incorporate the teachings of Walsh such that after minimizing of the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device has been effected, monitoring by continuously detecting the inclination of the carrier vehicle and/or of the lifting device relative to the predefined spatial direction and/or spatial plane. Doing so would ensure devices on top of the vehicle are carried stably (Walsh [0009]).
Regarding claim 3, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt and Walsh teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2. Fukumoto further discloses that when a detected inclination reaches or exceeds a predefined deviation during the monitoring, performing the effecting of the repetition of the calculating and the leveling in the loop. (Fukumoto Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt and Walsh teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 3. Fukumoto further discloses that wherein, in the loop, the calculating follows a previous leveling, and the calculating includes a detection of a change in the inclination due to the previous leveling. (Fukumoto Fig. 5 ref 201 & 204).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto in view of Sproatt, further in view of US-5258913 (“Baldauf”).
Regarding claim 8, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt does not teach that the activation of the drives of all of the individual supporting legs of the support system using the sequence of control commands is performed in an activation sequence in a predefined order. However, Baldauf teaches that the activation of the drives of all of the individual supporting legs of the support system using the sequence of control commands is performed in an activation sequence in a predefined order. (Baldauf col 2 lines 15-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt to incorporate the teachings of Baldauf such that the activation of the drives of all of the individual supporting legs of the support system using the sequence of control commands is performed in an activation sequence in a predefined order. Doing so would ensure leveling operations are done without complex hydraulic devices (Baldauf col 1 lines 30-32).
Claim(s) 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto in view of Sproatt, further in view of US-10093286-B2 to Lehman et al (“Lehman”).
Regarding claim 19, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt does not teach storing the calculated control commands in a memory unit of the controller, the control commands being output by the controller according to the sequence of control commands, and preferentially controlling the supporting legs by selecting or weighting individual or several supporting legs. However, Lehman teaches storing the calculated control commands in a memory unit of the controller, the control commands being output by the controller according to the sequence of control commands (Lehman Background (19) “controller includes a user interface device, memory, a drive interface, and a processing unit. The user interface device is adapted to receive input from a user. The memory stores data and code, the data including an auto-deploy time value. The processing unit is operative to process the code and, responsive to an auto-deploy signal from the user interface, operative to provide control signals via the drive interface to continuously extend the jack for a time period corresponding to the auto-deploy time value”), and preferentially controlling the supporting legs by selecting or weighting individual or several supporting legs (Lehman Description (20) “Stabilization is provided by extending jacks 104 past the point where they first contact the ground in order to lift RV 102 beyond the ride height and take some of the weight of RV 102 off of the vehicle's suspension.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt to incorporate the teachings of Lehman such that the method further comprises storing the calculated control commands in a memory unit of the controller, the control commands being output by the controller according to the sequence of control commands, and preferentially controlling the supporting legs by selecting or weighting individual or several supporting legs. Doing so would ensure fast and easy vehicle leveling (Lehman col 1 lines 52-54).
Claim(s) 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto in view of Sproatt, further in view of US-20140225431-A1 to Bass et. al. (“Bass”).
Regarding claim 21, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt does not teach calculating an overlap between successive control pulses. However, Bass teaches calculating an overlap between successive control pulses (Bass Abstract “corresponding load current pulses for the load elements are so produced that they overlap at least in the region” and [0033] “The interplay between the overlapping edges of different current pulses can be controlled by the following circuit switching variants”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt to incorporate the teachings of Bass such that the method further comprises calculating an overlap between successive control pulses. Doing so would ensure a substantial constant overall current (Bass Abstract).
Regarding claim 22, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 7. Additionally, the limitations recited in claim 22 mirror the limitations recited in claim 21, which were rejected above. See the rejection of claim 21 above.
Claim(s) 10-12, 17, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto in view of Sproatt, further in view of Lehman and Bass.
Regarding claim 10, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt does not teach that the activating of the individual drives of all of the supporting legs of the support system using the sequence of control commands is performed using control pulses with a time-limited, predefined overlap between successive control pulses. However, Lehman teaches that the activation of the individual drives of the supporting legs of the support system using the sequence of control commands is effected using control pulses with a time-limited, predefined or predefinable overlap between successive control pulses. (Lehman col 4 lines 37-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt to incorporate the teachings of Lehman such that the activation of the individual drives of the supporting legs of the support system using the sequence of control commands is effected using control pulses with a time-limited, predefined or predefinable overlap between successive control pulses. Doing so would ensure fast and easy vehicle leveling (Lehman col 1 lines 52-54).
Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt and Lehman does not explicitly teach overlap between successive control pulses. However, Bass teaches overlap between successive control pulses (Bass Abstract “corresponding load current pulses for the load elements are so produced that they overlap at least in the region” and [0033] “The interplay between the overlapping edges of different current pulses can be controlled by the following circuit switching variants”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt and Lehman to incorporate the teachings of Bass such that there is a overlap between successive control pulses. Doing so would ensure a substantial constant overall current (Bass Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt, Lehman, and Bass teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10. Lehman further discloses that a simultaneous activation of at most two drives is effected within the overlap between the successive control pulses. (Lehman col 4 lines 37-49 and "front jacks").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate the teachings of Lehman to Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt, Lehman, and Bass to incorporate the teachings of Lehman such that a simultaneous activation of at most two drives is effected within the overlap between the successive control pulses. Doing so would ensure fast and easy vehicle leveling (Lehman col 1 lines 52-54).
Bass further teaches overlap between successive control pulses (Bass Abstract “corresponding load current pulses for the load elements are so produced that they overlap at least in the region” and [0033] “The interplay between the overlapping edges of different current pulses can be controlled by the following circuit switching variants”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt, Lehman, and Bass to incorporate the teachings of Bass such that there is a overlap between successive control pulses. Doing so would ensure a substantial constant overall current (Bass Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt, Lehman, and Bass teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10. Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt, Lehman, and Bass does not teach that a duration of the overlap between successive control pulses is between 0.01 seconds and 0.5 seconds.
Nevertheless, Bass at least suggests the idea that the duration of the overlap between successive control pulses is seconds (Bass [0007] – [0008]). Further, the “mere scaling up” or “limitations relating to the size” or “recitation of relative dimensions” are generally not patentably distinguishable from a prior art device with both functioning in the same manner. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve such parameters of the duration of the overlap between successive control pulses in order to ensure a substantial constant overall current (Bass Abstract).
Regarding claim 17, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt, Lehman, and Bass teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 12. Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt, Lehman, and Bass does not teach that the duration of the overlap between successive control pulses is between 0.01 seconds and 0.1 seconds.
Nevertheless, Bass at least suggests the idea that the duration of the overlap between successive control pulses is seconds (Bass [0007] – [0008]). Further, the “mere scaling up” or “limitations relating to the size” or “recitation of relative dimensions” are generally not patentably distinguishable from a prior art device with both functioning in the same manner. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve such parameters of the duration of the overlap between successive control pulses in order to ensure a substantial constant overall current (Bass Abstract).
Regarding claim 23, Fukumoto as modified by Sproatt, Lehman, and Bass teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10. Additionally, the limitations recited in claim 23 mirror the limitations recited in claim 21, which were rejected above. See the rejection of claim 21 above.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 03/02/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
Applicant remarks:
In particular, claim 1 requires calculating of a sequence of control commands for sequential and time-limited activation of individual drives of all of the supporting legs of the support system. Furthermore, sequential and time- limited activation of the individual drives of all of the supporting legs is effected using the sequence of control commands and control pulses. In contrast, as described in the Fukumoto reference with reference to Figs. 4 and 5, support jacks for the outriggers are initially extended "at the same time to such an extent that the tires float" (see column 3, lines 29-31). Then, as noted by the Examiner, the Fukumoto reference teaches that a controller 10 will set an operation time (i.e., the same operation time) of t1 for each control valve, and then operates each control valve 15 at the same time for that period of t1 seconds (see column 3, lines 50-54). There is certainly no explicit teaching or even a suggestion that "a sequential and time-limited activation of individual drives of all of the supporting legs of the support system is effected using the sequence of control commands and control pulses," as required by independent claim 1. Instead, the Fukomoto reference at least strongly suggests that the control valves 15 (solenoid valves) of the jack cylinders 7 are collectively controlled by driving them at least at the same time, and for the same time period of t1 seconds (step 203 of Fig. 5). Similarly, the embodiment of Figs. 12 and 13 of the Fukumoto reference teaches actuation of a single jack cylinder to compensate for inclination, but also does not suggest sequential and time-limited activation of individual drives of all supporting legs of the support system. At best, the Fukumoto reference is extremely vague and unclear regarding the manner in which the "individual drives" (jack cylinders 7) are controlled. Thus, one skilled in the art would not learn from the teachings of the Fukumoto reference a sequential and time-limited activation of individual drives of all of the support legs of the support system, as required by independent claim 1. As the remaining references of record also do not teach or suggest such control, those reference do no correct the deficiencies in the primary Fukumoto reference. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that independent claim 1 and the claims that depend therefrom are clearly patentable over the prior art of record.
The Lehman reference teaches a leveling/stabilization system for a vehicle, including a jack, an actuator, a user interface device, and a controller. However, levelling is carried out based on the actuation times of the jacks, and SO a level sensor is not required. The passage in col. 4, lines 37-49 referenced by the Examiner relates to different actuation times of the jacks but does not disclose or suggest an overlap between actuation times.
Office response:
Please see the new mapping of claim 1.
See new mapping for claim 10.
See mapping for the newly added dependent claims.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights