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 Objections
Claims 8-9 and 14-15 objected to because of the following informalities: claims 8-9 and 14-15 recite the term “CPU” within the claim and lack a proper definition of the term “CPU”. Acronyms must be defined when used in limitations for a clear and unambiguous interpretation of the claimed subject matter. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show descriptive text labels as described in the specification. The unlabeled rectangular boxes shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. MPEP § 608.02(b).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
Claims 8-9 and 14-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-18 and 26-27 of U.S. Patent No. 12498234. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims recite nearly identical limitations that overlap in scope, as outlined in claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12498234 and claim 8 of the present application, below.
U.S. Patent No. 12498234
(Current App) No 18/699,875
Claim 17
Claim 8
The method of claim 13, characterized in that the non-modified energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is an adjustment energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, generated by means of a CPU of a computer device implementing a method for generating an adjustment energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation,
A method for generating an adjustment energy-efficient track for a vehicle in operation, that is performed by a CPU of a computer device,
the method comprising at least the following steps: generating an adjustment energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein the adjustment energy-efficient track is generated based on a main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein a main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation includes at least an estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on a portion of a route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, and wherein the estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, contains at least a first preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated;
the method comprising at least a step of generating an energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein the adjustment energy-efficient track is generated based on a main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation contains at least an estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on a portion of a route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, and wherein the estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, contains at least a first preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated;
and wherein the step of generating an adjustment energy-efficient track comprises at least the following steps: determining a current location of the vehicle in operation, wherein the current location of the vehicle in operation does not correspond to its estimated location on the portion of the route;
and wherein the step of generating an adjustment energy-efficient track comprises at least the following steps: determining a current location of the vehicle in operation, wherein the current location of the vehicle in operation does not correspond to its estimated location on the portion of the route;
determining an adjustment portion of the route, wherein its start coordinates match the current location of the vehicle in operation and its end coordinates match the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, and wherein the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, are located in the vehicle in operation's direction of movement;
determining an adjustment portion of the route, wherein its start coordinates match the current location of the vehicle in operation and its end coordinates match the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, and wherein the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, are located in the vehicle in operation's direction of movement;
collecting primary adjustment data, which involves obtaining data associated with the vehicle in operation and data associated with the adjustment portion of the route;
collecting primary adjustment data, which involves obtaining data associated with the vehicle in operation and data associated with the adjustment portion of the route;
and generating an adjustment energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein the adjustment energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation contains at least an estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on the adjustment portion of the route, and wherein the estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation contains the second preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation generated in such a way that when the vehicle in operation is moving at any of the speeds from the second preferred speed range, its speed at the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, matches any of the speeds from the first preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation.
and generating an adjustment energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein the adjustment energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation contains at least an estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on the adjustment portion of the route, and wherein the estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation contains the second preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation generated in such a way that when the vehicle in operation is moving at any of the speeds from the second preferred speed range, its speed at the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, matches any of the speeds from the first preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation.
In re claims 9-13 and 15-19, claims 9-13 and 15-19 depend from claims 8 and 14, respectively, and as such include the limitations of claims 8 and 14, and thus are further rejected for substantially the same reasons, mutatis mutandis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of claims 8-19 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of claims 8-19 recites at least one step or instruction for an abstract idea, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG.
Claim 8 recites, inter alia
generating an energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein
the adjustment energy-efficient track is generated based on a main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein
the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation contains at least
an estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on a portion of a route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, and wherein
the estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, contains at least
a first preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated; and wherein
the step of generating an adjustment energy-efficient track comprises at least the following steps:
determining a current location of the vehicle in operation, wherein
the current location of the vehicle in operation does not correspond to its estimated location on the portion of the route;
determining an adjustment portion of the route, wherein
its start coordinates match the current location of the vehicle in operation and its end coordinates match the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, and wherein
the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, are located in the vehicle in operation's direction of movement;
collecting primary adjustment data, which involves
obtaining
data associated with the vehicle in operation and
data associated with the adjustment portion of the route; and
generating an adjustment energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein
the adjustment energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation contains at least
an estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on the adjustment portion of the route, and wherein
the estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation contains the second preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation generated in such a way that when the vehicle in operation is moving at any of the speeds from the second preferred speed range, its speed at the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, matches any of the speeds from the first preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation.
Here, the steps of “generating an energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation”, “the adjustment energy-efficient track is generated based on a main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation”, “determining a current location of the vehicle in operation”, “determining an adjustment portion of the route”, “collecting primary adjustment data, which involves obtaining data associated with the vehicle in operation and data associated with the adjustment portion of the route”, “generating an adjustment energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation” and “the estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation contains the second preferred speed range…generated in such a way that…its speed at the start coordinates of the portion of the route…matches any of the speeds from the first preferred speed…” as recited in claim 8, comprise pre-solution data gathering as well as the abstract ideas of performing the mathematical operations of computing/calculating/comparing/generating/determining estimated/measured values and as such are considered to be an abstract idea (i.e. a mental process), and as such is ineligible subject matter.
Accordingly, each of claims 8 and 14 recite an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 8 recites
A method for generating an adjustment energy-efficient track for a vehicle in operation, that is performed by a CPU of a computer device,
the method comprising at least a step of
generating an energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein
the adjustment energy-efficient track is generated based on a main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein
the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation contains at least
an estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on a portion of a route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, and wherein
the estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, contains at least
a first preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated; and wherein
the step of generating an adjustment energy-efficient track comprises at least the following steps:
determining a current location of the vehicle in operation, wherein
the current location of the vehicle in operation does not correspond to its estimated location on the portion of the route;
determining an adjustment portion of the route, wherein
its start coordinates match the current location of the vehicle in operation and its end coordinates match the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, and wherein
the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, are located in the vehicle in operation's direction of movement;
collecting primary adjustment data, which involves
obtaining
data associated with the vehicle in operation and
data associated with the adjustment portion of the route; and
generating an adjustment energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein
the adjustment energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation contains at least
an estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on the adjustment portion of the route, and wherein
the estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation contains the second preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation generated in such a way that when the vehicle in operation is moving at any of the speeds from the second preferred speed range, its speed at the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, matches any of the speeds from the first preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation.
The recited limitations of
a vehicle
a CPU
a computer device
as recited in claim 8, are additional claim elements, however, these additional claim elements fail to meaningfully limit the claim.
Specifically, the recitation of the following claim limitation
collecting primary adjustment data, which involves
obtaining
data associated with the vehicle in operation and
data associated with the adjustment portion of the route
is merely pre-solution data gathering. Furthermore, the courts have held that using mathematical algorithms/relationships to update or convert data is ineligible subject matter. See e.g. Parker v. Flook; Gottschaulk v. Benson
The claim limitations of
generating an adjustment energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation
is merely post solution activity, which fails to meaning limit the claim (note: the claim does not require that anything actually happens after generating an adjustment energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation).
The claims also include additional structural elements (a vehicle, a CPU, a computer device) which are well-known and understood, routine, and conventional elements to those having ordinary skill within the relevant art. These elements do not meaningfully limit the claim.
Mutatis mutandis claim 14.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent claims 8-13 and 15-19 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent claims 8 and 14 (and their respective dependent claims 8-13 and 15-19) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent claims 8 and 14), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: (a vehicle, a CPU, a computer device) are generically recited structural elements and generically recited computer elements in independent claims 8 and 14 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claims 8 and 14 (and their respective dependent claims) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., a CPU and a computer device as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claims 8 and 14 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 8 and 14 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of claims 8-19 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a vehicle, a CPU, a computer device as recited in independent claims 8 and 14.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed structural components (i.e. a vehicle) and generically claimed computer components (a CPU and a computer device) which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks (such as mathematical functions/operations (including comparing estimated/measured values)). The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
The Applicant’s specification, in [page 19, ln 1-5], states that “Preferably, but not limited to, the computer devices mentioned in the present disclosure are generally any suitable computer devices that comprise at least a CPU and a memory, particularly, but not limited to, the claimed electronic devices capable of computation, the user device and the server of the system for generating an adjustment energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation." This being the case, it seems that the processor is a generic processor, which is well understood, routine and conventional.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term “processor” is reasonably construed as to constitute a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the processor. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in claims 8-19 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the methods and medium of claims 8-13 and 14-19, respectively, are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of claims 8-19 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent claims 8 and 14 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, claims 8-19 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the claims 8-19 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 8-19 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rewritten to overcome the nonstatutory Double Patenting rejection as set forth in this Office action.
Claims 9-13 and 15-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rewritten to overcome the nonstatutory Double Patenting rejection as set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art of record fails to show or reasonably teach in combination a vehicle control method having the recited elements, as required by claim 8, including:
generating an adjustment energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein
the adjustment energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation contains at least
an estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on the adjustment portion of the route, and wherein
the estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation contains the second preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation generated in such a way that when the vehicle in operation is moving at any of the speeds from the second preferred speed range, its speed at the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, matches any of the speeds from the first preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation.
or a medium storing vehicle control code having the recited elements, as required by claim 14, including:
generating an adjustment energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein
the adjustment energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation contains at least
an estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on the adjustment portion of the route, and wherein
the estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation contains the second preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation generated in such a way that when the vehicle in operation is moving at any of the speeds from the second preferred speed range, its speed at the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, matches any of the speeds from the first preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5692. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/JOHN D BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747