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 .
This is a Final rejection is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 26 August 2026. Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are currently pending, as discussed below. Claim 11 is canceled.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/26/2026 have been fully considered and is persuasive. Amendments to claim 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 12, 15 and 17 have been fully considered and 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is withdrawn. Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection for claims 1-20 set forth in office action of 5/ 29/2026 but is moot in view of new obviousness rejection necessitated by the amendments. Interpretation of "a controller" includes a general placeholder, is followed by a functional language "configured to receive crop condition data …" and is not modified by any word that provides sufficient structure in Prong C of MPEP 2181 therefore "a controller" interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112f is sustained.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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:
a controller in claims 1, 3, 8, 11, 17, 18 and 19
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.
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.
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for a controller:
"There may be provided a computer program, which when run on a computer, causes the computer to configure any apparatus, including a circuit, controller, converter, or device disclosed herein or perform any method disclosed herein. The computer program may be a software implementation, and the computer may be considered as any appropriate hardware, including a digital signal processor, a microcontroller, and an implementation in read only memory (ROM), erasable programmable read only memory (EPROM) or electronically erasable programmable read only memory (EEPROM), as non-limiting examples. The software may be an assembly program.", [¶ 74]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton; Kevin J. (US 20220207622 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hamilton teaches, an agricultural system comprising: an agricultural rake for a raking operation comprising gathering cut-crop material into a windrow (Fig. 1 depicts a self-propelled windrower 12, see at least, ¶20, Hamilton), the agricultural rake comprising: a crop condition sensor comprising a nutritional value sensor, the crop condition sensor positioned on the agricultural rake to detect a condition of the cut-crop material at least one of prior to, during, or after, windrow formation (the windrower 12 further comprises a plurality of sensors configured to monitor the quality of the crop, Fig. 6 depicts sensors 62 perform quality and yield monitoring before and after the windrower and comprise near infrared technology to interrogate crop material for a plurality of different molecules (proteins, fiber etc) which is interpreted as nutritional value, see at least, ¶20, 53, 57, Hamilton); wherein the agricultural system further comprises: a controller configured to: receive crop condition data comprising a nutritional value from the nutritional value sensor (the computing device 60 may access the server 24 to receive quality and yield maps, see at least, ¶30, 58-59, Hamilton); determine a process parameter comprising an intensity parameter for a subsequent agricultural process to the raking operation comprising at least one of seeding, spraying, mowing and conditioning, raking, tilling, or tedding, based on the nutritional value (Fig. 5 depicts the settings 52 which are based on the baseline quality and yield measurements or maps and are used for future decisions for the next field or cutting. Settings 52A-D describe a plurality of intensity parameters such as travel speed, conditioner speed, rotor speed, windrow width, etc, see at least, ¶ 30,48-50, Hamilton); and control an agricultural machine to alter an intensity of the at least one of collecting, seeding, spraying, chopping, mowing and conditioning, tilling, tedding, or further raking by the agricultural machine using the process parameter (Fig. 5 depicts swathing tedding, raking and baling machines and Fig. 7 depicts the computing device provides control of operations of the coupled machine and determines adjustments to machine controls 70 based on the difference maps, see at least, ¶56, Hamilton).
Hamilton does not explicitly teach determine a process parameter comprising an intensity parameter but examiner interprets settings 52 as a process parameter and the individual setting such as travel speed as an intensity parameter (see at least, ¶52, Hamilton). Therefore, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Hamilton to incorporate the settings 52 as a process parameter comprising intensity parameters in order to reduce microbial carbohydrate consumption to reduce crop losses (see at least, paragraph 30, Hamilton).
Regarding Claim 12, Hamilton teaches, a method for monitoring crop condition and controlling an agricultural machine (Fig. 1 depicts a self-propelled windrower 12, see at least, ¶20, Hamilton, the method comprising: receiving crop condition data from a crop condition sensor comprising a nutritional value sensor, the crop condition sensor positioned on an agricultural rake to detect a condition of cut- crop material during a raking operation that is at least one of prior to, during, or after windrow formation (the windrower 12 further comprises a plurality of sensors configured to monitor the quality of the crop, Fig. 6 depicts sensors 62 perform quality and yield monitoring before and after the windrower and comprise near infrared technology to interrogate crop material for a plurality of different molecules (proteins, fiber etc) which is interpreted as nutritional value, see at least, ¶20, 53, 57, Hamilton); determining a process parameter comprising an intensity parameter for a subsequent agricultural process to the raking operation comprising at least one of collecting, seeding, spraying, chopping, mowing and conditioning, tilling, tedding, or further raking, based on the nutritional value (Fig. 5 depicts the settings 52 which are based on the baseline quality and yield measurements or maps and are used for future decisions for the next field or cutting. Settings 52A-D describe a plurality of intensity parameters such as travel speed, conditioner speed, rotor speed, windrow width, etc, see at least, ¶ 30,48-50, Hamilton); and controlling an agricultural machine with a controller to alter an intensity of the at least one of collecting, seeding, spraying, chopping, mowing and conditioning, tilling, tedding, or further raking by the agricultural machine using the process parameter (Fig. 5 depicts swathing tedding, raking and baling machines and Fig. 7 depicts the computing device provides control of operations of the coupled machine and determines adjustments to machine controls 70 based on the difference maps, see at least, ¶56, Hamilton).
Hamilton does not explicitly teach determine a process parameter comprising an intensity parameter but examiner interprets settings 52 as a process parameter and the individual setting such as travel speed as an intensity parameter (see at least, ¶52, Hamilton). Therefore, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Hamilton to incorporate the settings 52 as a process parameter comprising intensity parameters in order to reduce microbial carbohydrate consumption to reduce crop losses (see at least, paragraph 30, Hamilton).
Regarding Claim 17, Hamilton teaches, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions for monitoring crop condition and controlling an agricultural machine, the instructions, when performed by a controller, configure the controller to (see at least, ¶72, Hamilton): receive crop condition data from a crop condition sensor comprising a nutritional value sensor, the crop condition sensor positioned on an agricultural rake to detect a condition of cut- crop material during a raking operation that is at least one of prior to, during, or after windrow formation (the windrower 12 further comprises a plurality of sensors configured to monitor the quality of the crop, Fig. 6 depicts sensors 62 perform quality and yield monitoring before and after the windrower and comprise near infrared technology to interrogate crop material for a plurality of different molecules (proteins, fiber etc) which is interpreted as nutritional value, see at least, ¶20, 53, 57, Hamilton); determine a process parameter comprising an intensity parameter for a subsequent agricultural process to the raking operation comprising at least one of collecting, seeding, spraying, chopping, mowing and conditioning, tilling, tedding, or further raking, based on the nutritional value (Fig. 5 depicts the settings 52 which are based on the baseline quality and yield measurements or maps and are used for future decisions for the next field or cutting. Settings 52A-D describe a plurality of intensity parameters such as travel speed, conditioner speed, rotor speed, windrow width, etc, see at least, ¶ 30,48-50, Hamilton); and control an agricultural machine to alter an intensity of the at least one of collecting, seeding, spraying, chopping, mowing and conditioning, tilling, tedding, or further raking by the agricultural machine using the process parameter (Fig. 5 depicts swathing tedding, raking and baling machines and Fig. 7 depicts the computing device provides control of operations of the coupled machine and determines adjustments to machine controls 70 based on the difference maps, see at least, ¶56, Hamilton).
Hamilton does not explicitly teach determine a process parameter comprising an intensity parameter but examiner interprets settings 52 as a process parameter and the individual setting such as travel speed as an intensity parameter (see at least, ¶52, Hamilton). Therefore, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Hamilton to incorporate the settings 52 as a process parameter comprising intensity parameters in order to reduce microbial carbohydrate consumption to reduce crop losses (see at least, paragraph 30, Hamilton).
Regarding Claim 2, Hamilton teaches, The agricultural system of claim 1, wherein the process parameter further comprises one or more of: a timing parameter or a selection parameter of the subsequent agricultural process (machine settings and/or schedule changes in the machine, see at least, ¶16, 30, 39, 40, 43-46, Hamilton).
Regarding Claim 3, 16 and 20, Hamilton teaches, the agricultural system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to (re-claim 3), the method of claim 12, further comprising (re-claim 16), and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, the instructions, when performed by the controller, further configure the controller to (re-claim 20): receive position data indicating a position of the agricultural rake from a position sensor (Sensors 50 include position detection, see at least, ¶54, Hamilton); and determine the process parameter as a position-dependent process parameter based on the crop condition data and the position data ( see at least, ¶75, Hamilton).
Regarding Claim 4, Hamilton teaches, The agricultural system of claim 1, wherein the crop condition sensor further comprises a moisture sensor (see at least, ¶21, Hamilton).
Regarding Claim 7, Hamilton teaches, the agricultural system of claim 4 wherein the moisture sensor comprises a plurality of moisture sensor elements (sensors located on or proximal to the rake), see at least, ¶36, Hamilton).
Hamilton does not explicitly teach each positioned on a corresponding tine of the agricultural rake.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the invention of Hamilton to re-arrange the moisture sensor elements on a corresponding tine of the agricultural rake, since the placement of a sensor is considered to be a choice of the designer (see MPEP 2144.04 VI C Rearrangement of Parts).
Regarding Claims 9 and 15, Hamilton teaches, the agricultural system of claim 1 (re-claim 9) and the method of claim 12 (re-claim 15), wherein the crop condition sensor further comprises one or more of: a quality sensor or a yield sensor (sensors monitor the quality of the crop and yield sensors, see at least, ¶21, Hamilton).
Regarding Claim 10, Hamilton teaches, the agricultural system of claim 1 wherein the subsequent agricultural process comprises an agricultural process in a subsequent harvesting cycle (Fig. 5 depicts loss monitoring system 10 that monitor quality and yield during stages of a harvest operation over one or more time periods where a second time period comprises a second harvest at another non-overlapping span of days, see at least, ¶42 and 56, Hamilton).
Regarding Claim 13 and 18, Hamilton teaches,
The method of claim 12, further comprising (re-claim 13) and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, the instructions, when performed by the controller, further configure the controller to (re-claim 18): receiving a previous process parameter from an agricultural process previous to the raking operation; correlating the previous process parameter with the crop condition data; and determining the process parameter for the subsequent agricultural process based on the correlation (A quality map and/or yield map is generated by the computing device 20 and/or the server 24 for later comparison with other stages of the forage harvesting operation and consequent machine setting adjustments and/or scheduling adjustments for the next stage or same stage at a later time period of operations (e.g., weeks or months later). Comparisons of the quality maps and/or yield maps of different stages may provide insight into where among the stages adjustments in machine settings. For example, adjustments to machine settings may be made based on dry tonnage determinations where speed is adjusted to lower the moisture content to a suitable amount, see at least, ¶30, Hamilton).
Regarding Claim 14 and 19, Hamilton teaches, the method of claim 12, further comprising (re-claim 14) and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, the instructions, when performed by the controller, further configure the controller to (re-claim 19) receive further crop condition data from a plurality of agricultural processes in one or more harvesting cycles; receive further process parameters from the plurality of agricultural processes (Fig. 5 depicts loss monitoring system 10 that monitor quality and yield during a plurality of stages of a harvest operation, see at least, ¶30, 42, 67, Hamilton); determine relationships between the further crop condition data and the further process parameters (comparisons of the quality and/or yield maps of different stages may provide insight into where among the stages more stage operations may provide a reduction in quality losses and/or yield losses (crop condition data) and correlate those losses based on machine settings for the current stage of harvest (process parameters), see at least, ¶30, 42, 67, Hamilton); and determine the process parameter for the subsequent agricultural process based on the condition data and the determined relationships (Similarly, adjustments (or recommended adjustments) to machine settings (e.g., swather traveling speed) and/or schedules may be made based on the dry tonnage determinations (e.g., compared to historical practice, predefined thresholds/threshold ranges, or configurable settings), where speed is adjusted to lower the moisture content to a suitable amount to reduce microbial carbohydrate consumption (e.g., closer to 60% moisture). As noted above, the quality and/or yield determinations may simply be fed back to the operator (and/or farm manager) to enable informed decisions on farm management practices, see at least, ¶30, 42, 67, Hamilton).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton; Kevin J. (US 20220207622 A1) and further in view of Kraus; Timothy J. (US 20120103205 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Hamilton teaches, the agricultural system of claim 4.
Hamilton does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to output an abort signal if moisture data sensed via the moisture sensor is outside a raking moisture range.
Kraus, directed to agricultural balers teaches, output an abort signal if moisture data sensed via the moisture sensor is outside a baling moisture range (Fig. 5 depicts block 510 send warning to display if the moisture content ratio has exceeded the high moisture content ratio threshold, see at least, ¶22, Kraus).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hamilton’s raking operation to incorporate the teachings of Kraus which teaches output an abort signal if moisture data sensed via the moisture sensor is outside a baling moisture range since they are both related to agricultural harvesting machines and incorporation of the teachings of Kraus would ensure that the moisture content of the material is in condition for storage and prevent spoilage or fire (¶2, Kraus).
Claim 5 and 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton; Kevin J. (US 20220207622 A1) and further in view of van der Lely; Cornelis (US 4157644 A) and Fay, II; Jeffrey B. et al. (US 20220210972 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Hamilton teaches, the agricultural system of claim 4.
Hamilton does not explicitly teach wherein the moisture sensor comprises a first moisture sensor and a second moisture sensor, the agricultural rake comprises a first rotary raking unit, a second rotary raking unit, and a swath guard positioned between the first and second rotary raking units for intercepting cut-crop material raked by tines of the agricultural rake to form the windrow, the first moisture sensor is positioned on a first surface of the swath guard facing the first rotary raking unit, and the second moisture sensor is positioned on a second surface of the swath guard facing the second rotary raking unit.
Van Der Lely, directed to a haymaking machine teaches, the agricultural rake comprises a first rotary raking unit, a second rotary raking unit, and a swath guard positioned between the first and second rotary raking units for intercepting cut-crop material raked by tines of the agricultural rake to form the windrow (Fig. 1 depicts two rake members 1 and 2 that rotate in opposite directions, and swath board 80 located between the two rake members collect crop and form a windrow, see at least, Col 12, line 47- Col 13, line 34, Van Der Lely).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hamilton’s machine to incorporate the teachings of Van Der Lely which teaches the agricultural rake comprises a first rotary raking unit, a second rotary raking unit, and a swath guard positioned between the first and second rotary raking units for intercepting cut-crop material raked by tines of the agricultural rake to form the windrow since they are both related to agricultural machines and incorporation of the teachings of Van Der Lely to adjust the width of the windrow.
Fay, directed to agricultural harvesting machines teaches, wherein the moisture sensor comprises a first moisture sensor and a second moisture sensor (moisture sensors 148 are plural and includes a first and second moisture sensor, see at least, ¶37, Fay, the first moisture sensor is positioned on a first surface of the swath guard (Fig. 2 depicts a swath gate 134 which creates windrows with moisture sensor 148 on the swath gate, see at least, ¶32, Fay).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hamilton and Van Der Lely to incorporate the moisture sensors located on the swath guard of Fay onto the swath board 80 of Van Der Lely to improve the resolution of field moisture monitoring.
Regarding Claim 6, Hamilton in view of Van Der Lely and Fay teaches, the agricultural system of claim 5.
Fay, directed to agricultural harvesting machines further teaches, wherein the moisture sensor comprises a flexible electrode on a surface of the swath guard (moisture sensors 148 may be fitted within a mount 160 which may include a plastic material, which is known to be flexible, see at least, ¶37-38, Fay).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hamilton in view of Van Der Lely and Fay to further incorporate the teachings of Fay which teaches wherein the moisture sensor comprises a flexible electrode on a surface of the swath guard since they are both related to agricultural harvesting machines and incorporation of the teachings of Fay would improve the resolution of field yield monitoring (¶8, Fay).
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 IRENE C KHUU whose telephone number is (703)756-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0900-1730.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571)272-4896. 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.
/IRENE C KHUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights