DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claims 1 and 9, the “control system” in the limitation “control system configured to control a cold start procedure” invokes 112(f) as “control system” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the controlling of a cold start procedure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification (paragraphs 0019 and 0025) shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure to these claim limitations:
“The control system 186 could include, for example, a supervisory controller or HCP of the MHEV 100. It will be appreciated that the control system 186 could also include other sub-controllers or modules, such as an engine control module (ECM).”
“It will be appreciated that the terms “controller” and “control system” as used herein refer to any suitable control device or set of multiple control devices that is/are configured to perform at least a portion of the techniques of the present application. Non-limiting examples include an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), one or more processors and a non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the controller to perform a set of operations corresponding to at least a portion of the techniques of the present application. The one or more processors could be either a single processor or two or more processors operating in a parallel or distributed architecture.”
In light of these passages, the control system will be interpreted as limited to one of the following: a hybrid control processor, engine control module, an application-specific integrated circuit, or a processor and non-transitory memory storing instructions to perform the method. A failure to interpret the “control system” as being limited to the former list of known structural components recited within the above passages may result in an indefinite scope. To prevent unwarranted indefiniteness, the “control system” will thus be interpreted as detailed above.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for "determining a constant torque level", does not reasonably provide enablement for "dynamically determining a desired torque level…throughout the cold start procedure". The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Particularly, consider Figure 3 (shown below) and paragraphs 0020-0024 of the specification.
PNG
media_image1.png
701
1027
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As detailed within paragraph 0022, “At 208, the control system 186 determines the total cold start torque (TiCOLD) based on the current operating parameters, e.g., measured by the sensors 194. This could include, for example, the driver torque request TREQ and the current and target (light-off) temperatures of the catalyst 132.” As shown in Figure 3, TiCOLD remains a constant throughout the cold start procedure, excluding the small time period wherein TiCOLD is initially determined presumably at vehicle startup. This is reflected in paragraph 0023: “At 212, the control system 186 controls the engine 116 to maintain a constant output torque at a level equal to the total cold start torque TiCOLD.” (Emphasis added.) From there, as shown in Figure 3, when requested torque TREG increases or decreases beyond certain margins, the engine torque TENG is adjusted away from the constant torque level TiCOLD. Therefore, the disclosure is enabling for TENG to be dynamically manipulated based on TREQ, but TiCOLD (i.e. the determined torque level) must be constant throughout the cold-start process after initial determination. One of ordinary skill in the art would thus be forced to perform undue experimentation in order to make the invention. Therefore, the disclosure is not enabling for the broader desired torque level (indicating potential for a non-constant torque) and dynamically determining desired torque level throughout the cold start procedure. This is considered new matter.
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.
Claims 1-16 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.
Claims 1 and 8 are recites the limitation "dynamic torque level" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, this will be interpreted as antecedent to the desired torque level.
Claim(s) 2-7 and 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claims 1 and 8 and failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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, 8-9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johri et al. US 20190047547 A1 (hereinafter Johri) as modified by Hasegawa et al. JP 2019189192 A (hereinafter Hasegawa; a translated copy has been provided which the examiner relies upon) and Seo et al. KR 20090062964 A (hereinafter Seo; a translated copy has been provided which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Johri teaches an emissions control system for a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) (paragraph 0001 "control systems for hybrid vehicles"), the emissions control system comprising:
a set of sensors configured to measure a set of operating parameters of a hybrid powertrain of the HEV (paragraph 0016-0017 discloses various sensors necessary for operating a hybrid powertrain), the set of measured operating parameters including (i) a driver torque request indicative of a desired amount of drive torque to be generated by the hybrid powertrain (paragraph 0019 discloses sensing an accelerator pedal position and interpreting the position as a demand for increased on decreased power, i.e. torque) and (ii) a temperature of a catalyst in an exhaust system of an engine of the hybrid powertrain (paragraph 0029 discloses sensing a catalytic converter temperature in relation to a threshold; paragraph 0025 discloses that the catalytic converter is within an exhaust system of the vehicle); and
a control system configured to control a cold start procedure of the engine of the hybrid powertrain (paragraph 0029 discloses a controller to perform a method after cold start is detected; paragraph 0016 discloses that the controller comprising a microprocessor and non-transitory memory wherein the memory stores executable instructions), the cold start procedure being completed when the catalyst temperature reaches a light-off temperature (Abstract discloses adjusting engine torque based on driver demand instead of maintaining a heating torque when catalyst reaches a temperature threshold; paragraph 0025 discloses that the temperature threshold is a light-off temperature) and including:
dynamically determining a desired torque level to be generated by the engine, wherein the desired torque level is dynamically determined throughout the cold start procedure based on the driver torque request (paragraph 0004 discloses maintaining a constant torque and overriding maintaining torque and adjusting engine torque in order to compensate for a desired output torque being outside of an electric machine's range; this dynamic adjustment of the engine torque requires determination of the value of the engine torque);
controlling the engine to maintain a desired torque level when an electric traction motor of the hybrid powertrain is capable of satisfying the driver torque request (Abstract discloses maintaining an engine steady state torque and using electric machine torque to satisfy driver output demand; paragraph 0009 discloses that the electric machine is an electric motor), wherein the electric traction motor is connected to a driveline of the HEV (Figure 1 shows that the electric machine 18 is connected to the driveline) and is temporarily disconnected from the engine (paragraph 0011 discloses that the electric machine can be disconnected from the engine so that it can act as the only driving source); and
when the electric traction motor is incapable of satisfying the driver torque request, controlling the engine to temporarily increase or decrease its torque output from the dynamic torque level to assist the electric traction motor in satisfying the driver torque request (paragraph 0004 discloses overriding maintaining torque and adjusting engine torque in order to compensate for a desired output torque being outside of an electric machine's range).
Johri does not teach a mild hybrid electric vehicle (MHEV).
Hasegawa teaches a mild hybrid electric vehicle (MHEV) (translated paragraph 0055 "mild hybrid vehicle").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Johri to incorporate the teachings of Hasegawa. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the MHEV of Hasegawa for the HEV of Johri. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Johri does not explicitly teach dynamically determining a desired torque level to be generated by the engine for optimal heating of the catalyst to the light-off temperature, wherein the desired torque level is dynamically determined throughout the cold start procedure based on the catalyst temperature.
Seo teaches dynamically determining a desired torque level to be generated by the engine for optimal heating of the catalyst to the light-off temperature (translated Abstract discloses determining engine torque when catalyst heating is necessary; translated page 5 paragraph 4 discloses method allows activation of the catalyst as soon as possible), wherein the desired torque level is dynamically determined throughout the cold start procedure based on the catalyst temperature (Abstract discloses engine torque is determined based on catalyst temperature).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Johri to incorporate the teachings of Seo such that the output torque of Johri can further be optimally determined based on catalyst temperature as taught by Seo. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure activation time is reached as soon as possible as detailed in Seo (translated page 5 paragraph 4).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, the modified Johri reference teaches all of claims 1 and 9. Johri further teaches that the catalyst is a three-way catalytic converter (paragraph 0025 "three-way catalytic converter").
Claim(s) 2-6 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johri as modified by Hasegawa and Seo as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Ding et al. CN 113997924 A (hereinafter Ding; a translated copy has been provided which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, the modified Johri reference teaches all of claims 1 and 9 as detailed above. Johri teaches that the hybrid powertrain further includes an electric starter/generator motor of an integrated starter/generator (ISG) unit connected to a crankshaft of the engine (paragraph 0024 discloses an ISG wherein the ISG motor is connected to an engine crankshaft); the electric starter/generator motor is powered by a battery system (paragraph 0024 discloses a battery associated with the ISG); and the electric traction motor is powered by a battery system (paragraph 0009-0010 discloses that the electric machine is associated with a battery to perform torque operations)
Johri does not teach that the hybrid powertrain further includes an electric starter/generator motor of a belt-driven starter/generator (BSG) unit connected to a crankshaft of the engine; the electric starter/generator motor is powered by a 12 V battery system; and the electric traction motor is powered by a 48 Volt (V) battery system.
Ding teaches that the hybrid powertrain further includes an electric starter/generator motor of a belt-driven starter/generator (BSG) unit connected to a crankshaft of the engine (translated page 3 last paragraph discloses a BSG connected to a crankshaft); the electric starter/generator motor is powered by a 12 V battery system (translated page 5 paragraph 3 discloses that a 12V battery provides energy for the starter); and the electric traction motor is powered by a 48 Volt (V) battery system (translated Abstract and translated page 2 third to last paragraph disclose a 48 V driving motor powered by a 48 V battery).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Johri to incorporate the teachings of Ding. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the BSG and 12V and 48V battery systems of Ding for the ISG and generic battery systems of Johri. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of allowing easy start and operation of the vehicle renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, the modified Johri reference teaches all of claims 2 and 10 as detailed above. Johri further teaches that the electric traction motor and its 48 V battery system are incapable of satisfying a plurality of different driver torque requests (paragraph 0009-0010 discloses that the electric machine is associated with a battery to perform torque operations; paragraph 0004 discloses that the electric machine is only operable within an operating range and additional torque beyond that requires assistance from the engine to produce).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, the modified Johri reference teaches all of claims 2 and 10 as detailed above. Johri further teaches that the control system is configured to start the engine upon initiating the cold start procedure and then increase the torque output of the engine to the desired torque level (Abstract discloses operating an engine at a steady state torque; paragraph 0029 discloses that the method is performed during detection of a cold start).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the modified Johri reference teaches all of claims 4 and 12 as detailed above. Johri further teaches that when the driver torque request exceeds a maximum torque capability of the electric traction motor, the control system is configured to increase the engine torque output above the desired torque level (paragraph 0034 discloses increasing an engine torque beyond steady state torque when it is determined that a desired torque output is greater than a maximum torque output of the electric machine).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, the modified Johri reference teaches all of claims 4 and 13 as detailed above. Johri further teaches that when the driver torque request falls below a difference between the desired torque level and a minimum torque capability of electric traction motor, the control system is configured to decrease the engine torque output below the desired torque level (paragraph 0037 discloses decreasing engine torque beyond steady state torque in response to the determination that a desired torque is less than a minimum torque of the electric machine; paragraph 0037 provides an example wherein the desired torque is less than the steady state torque).
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johri as modified by Hasegawa and Seo as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Yoshikawa et al. US 20130304293 A1 (hereinafter Yoshikawa) in light of "Dual-clutch transmission" by Wikipedia (hereinafter Wikipedia).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, the modified Johri reference teaches all of claims 1 and 9 as detailed above.
Johri does not explicitly teach that the hybrid powertrain further comprises a transmission comprising a first sub-transmission associated with even gears and a second sub-transmission associated with odd gears; the first sub-transmission is connected between the driveline, the electric traction motor, and a first disconnect clutch, wherein the first disconnect clutch is configured to selectively connect the first sub-transmission and the electric traction motor to the engine; and the second sub-transmission is connected between the driveline and a second disconnect clutch, wherein the second disconnect clutch is configured to selectively connect the second sub-transmission to the engine.
Yoshikawa teaches that a transmission comprising a first sub-transmission associated with even gears and a second sub-transmission associated with odd gears (paragraph 0022 "Dual Clutch Transmission"; in light of the first paragraph of Wikipedia, examiner understands that a dual clutch transmission contains two sub transmissions associated with odd and even gears);
the first sub-transmission is connected between the driveline, the electric traction motor, and a first disconnect clutch (Figure 1 shows transmission path between the electric motor MG, disconnecting clutch 32, and driveline 24), wherein the first disconnect clutch is configured to selectively connect the first sub-transmission and the electric traction motor to the engine (Abstract discloses that a clutch can disconnect or connect a transmission path between an engine and electric motor); and
the second sub-transmission is connected between the driveline and a second disconnect clutch (Figure 1 shows transmission path between a disconnecting clutch 32 and driveline 24), wherein the second disconnect clutch is configured to selectively connect the second sub-transmission to the engine (Abstract discloses that a clutch can disconnect or connect a transmission path with an engine).
While Yoshikawa does not explicitly teach a second and first disconnecting clutch that are separated clutches (which the claim language implies by use of “first” and “second”), the teaching of one clutch that performs the same function as both clutches would be trivial since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art as detailed in re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it trivial to duplicate the same disconnecting clutch mechanism if pure duplication is preferred over separable mechanisms since it has been held that duplicating a formerly integral structure involves only routine skill in the art as detailed in re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Johri to incorporate the teachings of Yoshikawa with a reasonable expectation of success to improve gear shifting speeds and allow for gear shifts without interrupting torque supply.
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 11/12/2025 have been received and fully considered and overcome the claim objections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 8/13/2025. These/this objections have/has been withdrawn.
Specification amendments filed 11/12/2025 have been received and fully considered and overcome the drawing objections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 8/13/2025. These/this objections have/has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 12, applicant argues that the Johri does not teach determining torque based on (a) the driver torque request. Examiner respectfully disagrees as Johri teaches overriding a maintained torque and adjusting engine torque in order to compensate for a desired output torque being outside of an electric machine’s range in paragraph 0004. Since the torque level no longer is required to be constant per the amended claims, examiner now interprets the output torque of Johri as the desired torque level. This effectively performs the dynamic torque control as claimed.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-13, filed 11/12/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 9 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Particularly, the argument that the prior art of record does not teach determining torque based on (b) the catalyst temperature is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Johri as modified by Hasegawa and Seo (see 103 rejection above).
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sasaki et al. US 20190293000 A1 discloses determining an engine torque rate based on catalyst temperature.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 5:00 am - 3:30 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669