Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments filed February 12, 2026 regarding rejection of claims 1-9 and 15 under 35 USC 102, have been fully considered and are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed February 12, 2026 regarding rejection of claims 10-11 under 35 USC 103, have been fully considered and are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed February 12, 2026 regarding rejection of claims 12-14 under 35 USC 103, have been fully considered and are unpersuasive.
3. Applicant argues that Buckland et al. (US 20230025714A1) does not disclose deploying a plurality of storage bins in a harvesting area by means of a tractor nor does it disclose storing harvested fruits and vegetables in the plurality of storage bins, or that filled storage bins are relocated from the harvesting area to a storage location as claimed in claim 1.
However, Buckland does disclose deploying a plurality of storage bins in a harvesting area by means of a tractor as well as storing harvested fruits or vegetables in the plurality of storage bins and that filled storage bins are relocated from the harvesting area to a storage location as claimed in claim 1.
A harvesting area, under broadest reasonable interpretation is an area which is in some way related to harvesting, and the claim is not specific to distance or some other method of distinguishing a harvesting area otherwise nor does the claim show that an orchard block is a harvesting area. Hence, Hubs between orchard blocks where fruits or vegetables are gathered into a bin and placed for a transport to pick up is within said harvesting area as it is related to harvesting process as mentioned in previous Office Action (see [0034] and Figs 8A-8M). In addition, as stated in the previous Office Action, a robot platform, which are self-driven agricultural vehicle, are still interpreted as tractors as both are serving same purpose of autonomous vehicles capable of carrying plurality of bins to and from the Logistic Yard, i.e. storage location, and Hubs, i.e. harvesting area (see Figs 1-3, [0038]-[0039]).
Further, applicant argues that storage bins are neither transported not carried around in the harvesting area.
However, claim 1 does not specify that the storage bins must remain in place of where it has been deployed. Claim 1 does state that harvester is to harvest fruits or vegetables and store them in the storage bins deployed in the harvesting area, not of how it must be handled while in the harvest area. Hence, it is reasonable to state that the claim is disclosed by Buckland as it does indeed show that a harvester, which is a harvest robot, harvesting fruits or vegetables and storing the fruits and vegetables into the storage bins deployed to harvesting area of hubs and orchard blocks (see Fig. 8E and [0200]). In addition, as mentioned above, storage bins are relocated from the harvesting area, which includes Hubs between the orchard blocks, by the tractor, which is an automotive vehicle used for drawing farm equipment, which is also what Buckland’s transport robot is, and to a Logistic Yard, i.e. a storage location (see [0200]-[0202]).
Therefore, Buckland does indeed disclose the claimed invention where Hubs are part of a harvesting area that is in some way related to harvesting, with transport robots, which are tractors, deploying storage bins to and from the harvesting area and Logistic Yard, i.e. a storage location. Hence, applicant’s arguments regarding rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102 are unpersuasive.
Also, applicant argues that independent claim 15 recites analogous features to claim 1 and therefore not disclosed by Buckland. However, claim 1 was fully rejected and arguments regarding claim 1 were unpersuasive as shown above. Therefore, applicant’s argument regarding claim 15 are also unpersuasive.
Applicant argues further that dependent claims 2-9 are not disclosed by Buckland. However, claim 1 was fully rejected and arguments regarding claim 1 were unpersuasive as shown above. Therefore, applicant’s argument regarding claim 2-9 are also unpersuasive for their dependence on claim 1.
4. Applicant continues to argue against rejection of claims 10-11 under 35 USC 103 that Buckland does not disclose deploying bins within orchard blocks themselves and that Hornbaker et al. (US 7047103B2) does not cure the deficiencies of Buckland and provides no information about empty containers being deployed in a harvesting area before harvesting by the tractor.
However, as stated above, Buckland does disclose claim 1 and that claim 1’s deploying in harvesting areas are not suggestive of deploying bins within the orchard blocks themselves, rather harvesting areas includes hubs as they are related to harvesting. The applicant is also reminded that previous Office Action rejects claims 10 and 11 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable by Buckland in view of Hornbaker, not Hornbaker alone. Buckland is relied upon in rejection of limitations in claim 1. Hornbaker is relied upon for additional tag and tag-reader features, where RFID tag is a machine-readable tag used to identify/track agricultural product/container movement and teaches storage bin tag (see Fig. 6, [col 2 lns 51-61], [col 7 lns 64-67 and col 8 lns 1-8], [col 8 lns 57-67], and [col 8 lns 9-26]).
In addition, claims 10-11 do not suggest that information about empty containers being deployed in a harvesting area before harvesting by tractor must be provided in any way. Claims also do not require a tag to be provided before harvesting, do not require storage bins to be empty when tagged, and do not require a tractor to perform harvesting as the applicant argues. Rather, claim 10 broadly requires storage bins with a storage bin tag, and reading the storage bin tag by a harvester tag reader and claim 11 to have a tractor with a tractor tag reader and reading the storage bin tag by the tractor tag reader, which Hornbaker provides a harvester or harvesting related machine and a tractor to have a tag reader and a container to have a tag that is read by the harvester and tractor tag reader (see Fig. 6, [col 2 lns 51-61], [col 7 lns 64-67 and col 8 lns 1-8], [col 8 lns 57-67], and [col 8 lns 9-26]).
Therefore, applicant’s arguments regarding claims 10-11 against rejection under 35 USC 103 are unpersuasive.
5. Regarding claims 12-14, the applicant argues that Lu et al. (US 20180065154A1) does not cure the deficiencies of Buckland with respect to features of claim 1.
However, Lu was not relied upon for teachings of claim 1 as shown in previous Office Action. Lu was relied upon for additional features claimed in claims 12-14. In addition, applicant is reminded that claims 12-14 were rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable by Buckland in view of Lu, not Lu alone. Again, as stated above, Buckland does indeed teach the limitations of claim 1 and Lu was not relied on to disclose the said features of claim 1. Therefore rejection of claims 12-14 still remains as Buckland in view of Lu teaches features of claim 1 and additional features of claims 12-14 of evaluating and grading fruits or vegetables through image data from a camera and sorting them to different storage bins are also disclosed (see Lu Figs 2-4, [0025]-[0027] as explained in rejection from previous Office Action).
Therefore, applicant’s arguments regarding rejection of claims 12-14 under 35 USC 103, are unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable by Buckland et al. (US 20230025714 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Buckland et al. teaches a method for harvesting fruit or vegetable, comprising (see Figs 5 and 9 in general):
- providing a tractor (see Figs 1-3 and [0038]-[0039] where a robot platform can be used to carry bins. These are interpreted as tractors since tractors, especially for application, is used as autonomous vehicle capable of carrying plurality of bins and robot platform in Buckland are autonomous vehicles that perform the same as the application as shown in the figures; see also [0200] where Transport Robot is set to deliver to and from the Logistics Yard to Hubs.);
- providing a plurality of storage bins in a supply location, the storage bins configured to store fruit or vegetable (see [0200] where a transport task brings plurality of bins from Logistics Yard to different Hub through Transport Robot. Logistics Yard is described as a large hub that has long-term storage bins in paragraph [0035])
- deploying the plurality of storage bins in a harvesting area by means of the tractor (see [0200] where a transport task brings plurality of bins from Logistics Yard to different Hub through Transport Robot; see also [0034] where Hub is an area nearby orchard blocks for the bins to be placed and refuel/charge robots.);
- providing a harvester (see [0198]-[0203] where Harvest Robots are mentioned to work in their segments in an Orchard Block.);
- harvesting fruit or vegetable by the harvester and storing the fruit or vegetable in the plurality of storage bins deployed in the harvesting area (see Fig 8E and [0200] where Harvest Robots begin their harvest segments and placing them into the bins provided by Transport Robots.);
- relocating filled storage bins filled with fruit or vegetable from the harvesting area to a storage location by the tractor (see [0200]-[0202] where Harvest Robot brings filled bins to Hubs and Transport Robot brings the filled bins to the Logistics Yard to retrieve more empty bins.)
- providing an operation control and management system comprising one or more data processors and a data storage device and configured to receive and process data (see [0305] and [0312] where it uses a computer that comprises of a processor, a memory, a data storage device to implement embodiments of the invention, i.e. control and managing operations of robots and systems through computer.);
- receiving storage bin location data indicative of a location of the storage bins from the plurality of storage bins (see [0076], [0086] and Figs 8C-8K where locations of storage bins can be determined through GPS sensor of the robots and determining that the Task Robots and Harvest Robots as well as different Hubs, storage yard, and logistic yard have, or not have, empty and filled bins.);
- receiving harvesting data indicative of at least one harvesting process parameter in the operation control and management system (see [0198]-[0202] where Harvest Robots deliver filled bins to Hubs and pick up empty bins from the Hub to ensure no loss of time while Transport Robots deliver empty bins from Logistics Yard to Hub and vice versa for filled bins.); and
- providing tractor control data in the operation control and management system in response to the at least one harvesting process parameters (see [0198]-[0200] where Task Manager allocates tasks, i.e. control data, to both Harvest Robots and Transport Robots to first bring empty bins from Logistics Yard to Hub for Harvest Robots to pick up and use. Then, Transport Robots collects and brings from Hub to Logistics Yard the fille bins.)
wherein an operation mode of the tractor for at least one of deploying the plurality of storage bins and relocating the filled storage bins is controlled according to the tractor control data (see [0200] where there are plurality of empty bins are being brought to Hubs by Transport Robot.).
Regarding claim 2, Buckland teaches the method for operating the system of claim 1, further comprising
providing an autonomous tractor and controlling an autonomous operation mode of the autonomous tractor according to the tractor control data (see [0198]-[0200] where Task Manager allocates tasks, i.e. control data, to both Harvest Robots and Transport Robots to first bring empty bins from Logistics Yard to Hub for Harvest Robots to pick up and use. Then, Transport Robots collects and brings from Hub to Logistics Yard the fille bins; see also Figs 1-3 and [0038]-[0039] where a robot platform can be used to carry bins. These are interpreted as tractors since tractors, especially for application, is used as autonomous vehicle capable of carrying plurality of bins and robot platform in Buckland are autonomous vehicles that perform the same as the application as shown in the figures.; see further [0031] where any robot is described to be autonomous wheeled or flying platform that navigates through harvesting environment.).
Regarding claim 3, Buckland teaches the method for operating the system of claim 1, further comprising:
- outputting output data through a user interface device of the tractor to a user, the output data being indicative of the tractor control data (see [0083] and [0094] where there is a Task manager interface have operations generated by human operators through graphical user interface; see also [0193] and [0200] where tasks are generated, output data, to control Transport Robots and Harvest Robots to move storage bins from Logistics Yard to Hub and vice versa.) ;
- receiving user input through the user interface device of the tractor in response to the outputting of the output data (see [0094] where Task Manager that manages tasks of Transport and Harvest Robots, mentioned in [0200], is said to have direct management through human operators with graphical interface, which would indicate that user can have input in tasks done by the robots as well as receiving what is going on with each of the robots and harvest areas as a whole.); and
- controlling the operation mode of the tractor according to the user input (see [0094] and [0200] as mentioned above).
Regarding claim 4, Buckland teaches the method for operating the system of claim 1,
wherein the at least one harvesting process parameter is selected from the following group consisting of:
- filling parameter of the filled storage bins detected by a filling detecting sensor device and indicative of a filling status of the filled storage bins (see [0048]-[0070], [0080], [0198]-[0203], [0210] where all robots, including harvesting robots, are equipped with different sensors that include various types of camera sensors. These are used to have input resource of empty bins to trees and output resource of filled bins to hubs. As mentioned above, the robots, Harvest Robots are able to detect bins, whether it is filled or not using sensor data as shown in Fig. 5, and send information to Task Manager and Local Almanac, which provides Tasks and allocates tasks for Harvest Robots to bring the filled bins to hub and collect empty bin to continue harvest, i.e. filling parameter indicative of filling status of the filled storage bins.);
- weather parameter detected by a weather sensor device and indicative of a weather condition in the harvesting area (see [0071] where environmental sensors include thermometer, barometer, airflow and air pressure sensors, which would detect and monitor weather; see also [0091] where the environmental sensors are used to track health and state of each part of an orchard so that orchard managers can determine when to harvest.); and
- harvesting parameter indicative of a harvesting condition with respect to a harvesting operation mode of the harvester (see [0091] where the environmental sensors and economic data are used to track health and state of each part of an orchard as well as cost of labor and price of fruit so that orchard managers can determine when it is beneficial to harvest; see also [0171] where fruit sizes are used to determine whether or not to harvest fruits.).
Regarding claim 5, Buckland teaches the method for operating the system of claim 1, further comprising
providing an automated harvester comprising autonomous harvesting devices configured to autonomously harvesting fruit or vegetable and providing the fruit or vegetable to the storage bins (see [0081] where autonomous robots are used to transfer resources between hubs and trees, i.e. autonomous harvester. The description in paragraph [0200] show how the autonomous Harvest Robots can continuously harvest fruits into the storage bins.).
Regarding claim 6, Buckland teaches the method for operating the system of claim 5, further comprising
providing harvester control data in the operation control and management system in response to the at least one harvesting parameter (see [0202] and Fig. 8I where Task Manager sends out tasks for Harvest Robots to harvest and once bin is filled, it is brought to Hubs so that Transport Robots can deliver the filled bins to Logistics Yard.),
wherein a harvester operation mode of the harvester for at least one of moving the harvester between different locations and harvesting fruit or vegetable is controlled according to the harvester control data (see [0202] and Fig. 8I as shown above. Note that in [0196] Harvest Robot directed to leave one row segment to another to fill up the bin; see also [0076] where Kinematic sensors are used to see the locations of the robots.).
Regarding claim 7, Buckland teaches the method for operating the system of claim 1, further comprising
providing a harvester implement configured to attach to the tractor (see Figs 2-3 and [0038]-[0039] where a robot platform, or a bin carrying compartment, or a forklift is used on a transport robot to carry bins. A picker platform in Fig 3 can also be used to increase height of the picker and it can carry multiple bins.).
Regarding claim 8, Buckland teaches the method for operating the system of claim 1, further comprising
providing a self-propelled autonomous harvester (see [0081] where autonomous robots are used to transfer resources between hubs and trees, i.e. autonomous harvester.).
Regarding claim 9, Buckland teaches the method for operating the system of claim 1, further comprising
providing a storage bin carrier configured to attach to the tractor and to carry the plurality of storage bins and the filled storage bins (see Figs 2-3 and [0038]-[0039] where a robot platform, or a bin carrying compartment, or a forklift is used on a transport robot to carry bins. A picker platform in Fig 3 can also be used to increase height of the picker and it can carry multiple bins.).
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites a system that perform the method(s) recited in claim 1. The cited portions of Buckland used in the rejections of claim 1 teach the method performed by the system recited in claim 15. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1.
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.
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.
7. Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Buckland in view of Hornbaker et al. (US 7047103 B2)
Regarding claim 10, Buckland teaches the method for operating the system of claim 1,
However, Buckland does not teach providing the harvester with a harvester tag reader; providing the storage bins from the plurality of storage bins with a storage bin tag such as a barcode tag; and reading the storage bin tag by the harvester tag reader.
Hornbaker teaches providing the harvester with a harvester tag reader (see [col 7 lns 64-67 and col 8 lns 1-8] and [col 8 lns 57-67] where RFID tag with time and location information is read through 11 Stages and output as shown in Fig. 6, which includes harvest stage. This would indicate a harvester or any harvesting related machine to have a tag reader to provide these information; see also Fig. 6 and [col 8 lns 9-26] where harvester 110 includes RFID tag ID in its data.);
providing the storage bins from the plurality of storage bins with a storage bin tag such as a barcode tag (see [col 2 lns 51-61] and [col 8 lns 9-26] where a container has a radio-frequency (RFID) tag and the RFID tag includes information of an absolute location, such as current GPS coordinates.); and
reading the storage bin tag by the harvester tag reader (see [col 7 lns 64-67 and col 8 lns 1-8] and [col 8 lns 57-67], as well as Fig. 6 and [col 8 lns 9-26] as shown above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the orchard management system of Buckland by incorporating the teachings of Hornbaker such that the radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag is used to track transported grain, i.e. fruits or vegetables, during harvesting process.
The motivation to do so is that, as indicated by Hornbaker, this allows for increase in efficiency and security value through documentation of movement of the product and attributes of grain to make sure there is no bioterrorism or commingling of other materials. There would also be an economic value as mentioned by Hornbaker that consumers would pay premium for food items that gives proof of food having been segregated from unwanted ingredients or attributes (see [col 2 lns 24-50]).
Regarding claim 11, Buckland does teach the method for operating the system of claim 1, further comprising:
However, Buckland does not teach providing the tractor with a tractor tag reader; and reading the storage bin tag by the tractor tag reader.
Hornbaker does teach providing the tractor with a tractor tag reader (see [col 7 lns 64-67 and col 8 lns 1-8] and [col 8 lns 57-67] where RFID tag with time and location information is read through 11 Stages and output as shown in Fig. 6, which includes stage 2 and 3 where tractor is involved in receiving using bin and unloading the bin. This would indicate a tractor or any related machine to move filled bins have a tag reader to provide these information; see also Fig. 6 and [col 8 lns 9-26] where tractor-harvester 112 and supply location 116 includes RFID tag ID in its data.); and
reading the storage bin tag by the tractor tag reader (see [col 7 lns 64-67 and col 8 lns 1-8] and [col 8 lns 57-67], as well as Fig. 6 and [col 8 lns 9-26] as shown above).
Motivation to combine is the same as claim 10.
8. Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Buckland in view of Lu et al. (US 20180065154 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Buckland teaches the method for operating the system of claim 1,
However, Buckland does not teach providing the harvester with a grading device configured to determine grading data indicative of grading of fruit or vegetable filled to the storage bins.
Lu et al. teaches providing the harvester with a grading device configured to determine grading data indicative of grading of fruit or vegetable filled to the storage bins (see Figs 2-4 and [0025]-[0026] where an apparatus with a sorter and a processor, evaluates images of apple finding any defects and qualities, and sorts, or grades, the apple to different bins depending on the results of the evaluation. Note that in [0027], this can be applied to other fruits or vegetables.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the orchard management system of Buckland by incorporating the teaching of Lu such that the harvester and the harvesting process is equipped with an apparatus to take image and sort the fruits or vegetables according to its grading and quality.
The motivation to do so it that, as indicated by Lu, this allows for a harvesting system that quickly and efficiently separates fruits or vegetables according to the quality for fresh produce market and it is compact and durable enough for harvest conditions (see [0004]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Buckland in view of Lu teaches the method for operating the system of claim 12, further comprising
determining a storage bin grading parameter providing for a harvesting process parameter from the grading data, the storage bin grading parameter being indicative of a bin grade assigned to the storage bin and selected from a plurality of different bin grades (see Figs 2-4 and [0025]-[0026] where an apparatus with a sorter and a processor, evaluates images of apple finding any defects and qualities, and sorts, or grades, the apple to different bins depending on the results of the evaluation. Note that in [0027], this can be applied to other fruits or vegetables.).
The motivation to combine is the same as claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, Buckland teaches the method for operating the system of claim 1, further comprising:
- providing the harvester with a camera device (see Buckland [0048]-[0070] where all robots, including harvesting robots, are equipped with different sensors that include various types of camera sensors.);
However, Buckland does not teach detecting image data for fruit and vegetable filled to the storage bins by the camera device; determining, for fruit and vegetable filled to the storage bins, fruit or vegetable characteristics from the image data by image data analysis; and storing characteristics data indicative of the fruit or vegetable characteristics, wherein fruit or vegetable characteristics determined for at least some fruit or vegetable filled to one of the plurality of storage bins are assigned to the one storage bin.
Lu does teach detecting image data for fruit and vegetable filled to the storage bins by the camera device (see Lu [0023] and [0025] where a process is in communication with a camera to evaluate images of apple finding any defects and qualities.);
determining, for fruit and vegetable filled to the storage bins, fruit or vegetable characteristics from the image data by image data analysis (see Lu [0025] where a process is in communication with a camera to evaluate images of apple finding any defects and qualities.); and
storing characteristics data indicative of the fruit or vegetable characteristics, wherein fruit or vegetable characteristics determined for at least some fruit or vegetable filled to one of the plurality of storage bins are assigned to the one storage bin (see Lu Figs 2-4 and [0025]-[0026] where an apparatus with a sorter and a processor, evaluates images of apple finding any defects and qualities, and sorts, or grades, the apple to different bins depending on the results of the evaluation. Note that in [0027], this can be applied to other fruits or vegetables.).
The motivation to combine is the same as claim 12.
Conclusion
9. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYANG AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-4162. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/H.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights