DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the arguments filed March 19th, 2026. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14, 15, 17-19, 21, 23, 26, 28, 34, and 39 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 8th, 2026 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 34, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noel et al. (US Pub. No. 20200198810 A1), herein after Noel.
Regarding claim 1, Noel teaches [a] computer-implemented method of scheduling a satellite manoeuvre for a satellite comprising a propulsion system, the method comprising (Noel: Para. 0008, teaching an apparatus and method for optimizing the transfer maneuver of a satellite from one orbital plane to another): receiving parameters for one or more planned manoeuvres to move the satellite from a current orbit to a new orbit using the propulsion system, the received parameters including a time window within which each manoeuvre is to be scheduled to take place and a duration of each of the one or more planned manoeuvres (Noel: Para. 0045, teaching determining a maneuver for a satellite to transfer orbits; and Para. 0037, teaching determining a duration of thrusters of a satellite to be firing during ); receiving times of eclipses of the Sun by the Earth (Noel: Para. 0045, teaching that the transfer orbits occur based on whether the satellite is in an eclipse); scheduling a manoeuvre of the one or more planned manoeuvres (i) to take place within the time window, and (ii) to begin during a first quarter of an orbit of the satellite around the Earth, the first quarter of the orbit starting at an estimated time at which the satellite will enter an eclipse of the Sun by the Earth, according to the received parameters and the times of eclipses (Noel: Para. 0046, teaching that variable thrust maneuvers of a satellite to transfer orbits are scheduled to occur during a predetermined maneuver plan; and Para. 0045, teaching that the variable thrust maneuver can preferably occur during an eclipse if there is only a single variable thruster); and outputting one or more manoeuvre parameters for performing the scheduled manoeuvre to the satellite, or to an operation controller that is configured to manoeuvre the satellite (Noel: Para. 0046, teaching controlling the variable thrusters according to the maneuvers scheduled).
Regarding claim 2, Noel remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 1, wherein scheduling the satellite manoeuvre further comprises scheduling the manoeuvre so that it is not performed during a proportion of the orbit during which the propulsion system of the satellite is exposed to the Sun (Noel: Para. 0045, teaching that the control of the variable thrusters can occur when the satellite is in an eclipse).
Regarding claim 3, Noel remains as applied as in claim 2 and goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 2, wherein the manoeuvre is scheduled so that it is not performed during a fourth quarter of the orbit of the satellite around the Earth, the fourth quarter of the orbit starting when the satellite crosses an ecliptic line during a non-eclipse portion of its orbit, and wherein the duration of at least one of the planned manoeuvres is a period including at least two orbits of the satellite around the Earth (Noel: Para. 0045, teaching that the control of the variable thrusters can occur when the satellite is in an eclipse; and Para. 0046, teaching that the maneuver comprises multiple transfer orbits around the sun that must be completed).
Regarding claim 8, Noel remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 1, wherein scheduling the satellite manoeuvre further comprises, after receiving the received parameters for one or more planned manoeuvres and before receiving estimated times of eclipses of the Sun by the Earth: receiving propulsion scheduling requirements; and determining that the propulsion scheduling requirements can be met within the time window (Noel: Para. 0045, teaching determining a maneuver for a satellite to transfer orbits that are possible to be execute by the satellite; and Para. 0037, teaching determining a duration of thrusters of a satellite to be firing during based on when it enters an eclipse).
Regarding claim 34, Noel teaches [a] satellite operated according to a computer-implemented method of scheduling a satellite manoeuvre for a satellite comprising a propulsion system, the method comprising (Noel: Para. 0008, teaching an apparatus and method for optimizing the transfer maneuver of a satellite from one orbital plane to another): receiving parameters for one or more planned manoeuvres to move the satellite from a current orbit to a new orbit using the propulsion system, wherein the received parameters include a time window within which each manoeuvre is to be scheduled to take place and a duration of each of the one or more planned manoeuvres (Noel: Para. 0045, teaching determining a maneuver for a satellite to transfer orbits; and Para. 0037, teaching determining a duration of thrusters of a satellite to be firing during ); receiving times of eclipses of the Sun by the Earth (Noel: Para. 0045, teaching that the transfer orbits occur based on whether the satellite is in an eclipse); scheduling a manoeuvre of the one or more planned manoeuvres (i) to take place within the time window, and (ii) to begin during a first quarter of an orbit of the satellite around the Earth, the first quarter of the orbit starting at an estimated time at which the satellite will enter an eclipse of the Sun by the Earth, according to the received parameters and the times of eclipses (Noel: Para. 0046, teaching that variable thrust maneuvers of a satellite to transfer orbits are scheduled to occur during a predetermined maneuver plan; and Para. 0045, teaching that the variable thrust maneuver can preferably occur during an eclipse if there is only a single variable thruster); and outputting one or more manoeuvre parameters for performing the scheduled manoeuvre to the satellite, or to an operation controller that is configured to manoeuvre the satellite (Noel: Para. 0046, teaching controlling the variable thrusters according to the maneuvers scheduled).
Regarding claim 39, Noel teaches [a] non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions which, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to carry out a method of scheduling a satellite manoeuvre for a satellite comprising a propulsion system, the method comprising (Noel: Para. 0008, teaching an apparatus and method for optimizing the transfer maneuver of a satellite from one orbital plane to another): receiving parameters for one or more planned manoeuvres to move the satellite from a current orbit to a new orbit using the propulsion system, wherein the received parameters include a time window within which each manoeuvre is to be scheduled to take place and a duration of each of the one or more planned manoeuvres (Noel: Para. 0045, teaching determining a maneuver for a satellite to transfer orbits; and Para. 0037, teaching determining a duration of thrusters of a satellite to be firing during ); receiving times of eclipses of the Sun by the Earth (Noel: Para. 0045, teaching that the transfer orbits occur based on whether the satellite is in an eclipse); scheduling a manoeuvre of the one or more planned manoeuvres (i) to take place within the time window, and (ii) to begin during a first quarter of an orbit of the satellite around the Earth, the first quarter of the orbit starting at an estimated time at which the satellite will enter an eclipse of the Sun by the Earth, according to the received parameters and the times of eclipses (Noel: Para. 0046, teaching that variable thrust maneuvers of a satellite to transfer orbits are scheduled to occur during a predetermined maneuver plan; and Para. 0045, teaching that the variable thrust maneuver can preferably occur during an eclipse if there is only a single variable thruster); and outputting one or more manoeuvre parameters for performing the scheduled manoeuvre to the satellite, or to an operation controller that is configured to manoeuvre the satellite (Noel: Para. 0046, teaching controlling the variable thrusters according to the maneuvers scheduled).
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.
Claims 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17-19, 21, 23, 26, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mukae; Hisayuki (US Pub. No. 20220371755 A1), herein after Mukae.
Regarding claim 5, Noel remains as applied as in claim 1, however Noel is silent to [t]he method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the planned manoeuvres is a manoeuvre to return the satellite to a predetermined orbit or, after receiving a collision warning, a manoeuvre to avoid a collision.
In a similar field, Mukae teaches [t]he method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the planned manoeuvres is a manoeuvre to return the satellite to a predetermined orbit or, after receiving a collision warning, a manoeuvre to avoid a collision (Mukae: Para. 0239, teaching that the maneuver can be one to avoid collision with an object) for the benefit of preventing damage of a satellite in the event of a collision.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the satellite maneuver determination and execution from Noel to also plan maneuvers that avoid collision with other satellites and space debris, as taught by Mukae, for the benefit of preventing damage of a satellite in the event of a collision
Regarding claim 7, Noel and Mukae remain as applied as in claim 5, and Noel goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 5, wherein scheduling the satellite manoeuvre further comprises: (a) determining a first set of candidate parameters for a planned manoeuvres to move the satellite from a current orbit to a new orbit, wherein the parameters include a first candidate time and a first candidate duration of each of the one or more planned manoeuvres, and defining the first set of candidate parameters as a current set of candidate parameters (Noel: Para. 0045 and 0046, teaching that the maneuver comprises parameters such as the time and location of the maneuver and the location of the satellite in relation to the Earth and Sun); and Mukae goes on to further teach (b) supplying the current set of candidate parameters to a collision avoidance system (Mukae: Para. 0123, teaching providing the location and maneuver information of a satellite to a collision avoidance assistance device) ; (c) receiving a probability of collision from the collision avoidance system based on the current set of candidate parameters (Mukae: Para. 0171, teaching that an alert control unit determines the probability of collision between the satellite and an object in space) ; (d) if the probability of collision is above a predetermined threshold, determining a new set of candidate parameters as the current set of candidate parameters for the one or more planned manoeuvres; and repeating steps (b) to (d) until the probability of collision is below the predetermined threshold; and selecting the current set of parameters for which the probability is below the predetermined threshold as the received parameters (Mukae: Para. 0328, teaching that if the current path of a satellite would result in collision with an object, then the system calculates a new maneuver for the satellite will take and if that maneuver would result in collision, it will keep generating new maneuvers till a path that wouldn't result in a collision is found).
Regarding claim 9, Noel remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 1, wherein: the received parameters comprise satellite state data; and the method further comprises processing the satellite state data by (a) receiving the satellite state data in a form of multiple separate files via one or more ground stations (Noel: Para. 0083, teaching receiving data regarding transfer orbits from ground stations).
Noel is silent to (b) compiling the received satellite state data into a single dataset accessible via an application programming interface and searchable by time range.
In a similar field, Mukae teaches (b) compiling the received satellite state data into a single dataset accessible via an application programming interface and searchable by time range (Mukae: Para. 0161 and 0163, teaching receiving information on the satellite includes data that identifies the satellite, data on when the satellite performs a maneuver, and data on the location of the satellite; and Para. 0637, teaching that the information is accessible via an information disclosure request) for the benefit of sharing the records of the satellite’s movement with relevant third parties more efficiently.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the satellite movement determination and maneuver determination from Noel with to record the data on the satellite and compile it into a presentable form, as taught by Mukae, for the benefit of sharing the records of the satellite’s movement with relevant third parties more efficiently.
Regarding claim 10, Noel and Mukae remain as applied as in claim 9, and Mukae goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 9, wherein: the satellite state data comprises raw data; processing the satellite state data further comprises filtering the raw satellite state data in an orbit determination process to provide filtered satellite state data; and each item of filtered satellite state data corresponds to an item of raw satellite state data (Mukae: Para. 0150, teaching that the data on a space object is filtered based on its ID which is used to separate it between satellites and space debris).
Regarding claim 12, Noel and Mukae remain as applied as in claim 10, and Mukae goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 10, wherein: processing the satellite state data further comprises receiving manoeuvre data relating to one or more scheduled manoeuvres of the satellite and compiling the received manoeuvre data into a dataset accessible via an application programming interface and searchable by time range; and the manoeuvre data is used in filtering the received satellite data (Mukae: Para. 0161 and 0163, teaching receiving information on the satellite includes data that identifies the satellite, data on when the satellite performs a maneuver, and data on the location of the satellite; and Para. 0637, teaching that the information is accessible via an information disclosure request).
Regarding claim 14, Noel remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 1, wherein: the received parameters comprise raw satellite state data and manoeuvre data relating to one or more scheduled manoeuvres of the satellite; and the method further comprises processing satellite state data by (a) receiving the raw satellite state data, (b) receiving the manoeuvre data relating to one or more scheduled manoeuvres of the satellite (Noel: Para. 0046, teaching that variable thrust maneuvers of a satellite to transfer orbits are scheduled to occur during a predetermined maneuver plan which includes data regarding the satellite and data on the maneuvers).
Noel is silent to (c) filtering the received raw satellite state data in an orbit determination process to provide filtered satellite state data, the manoeuvre data being used in the filtering of the received raw satellite state data.
In a similar field, Mukae teaches (c) filtering the received raw satellite state data in an orbit determination process to provide filtered satellite state data, the manoeuvre data being used in the filtering of the received raw satellite state data (Mukae: Para. 0161 and 0163, teaching receiving information on the satellite includes data that identifies the satellite, data on when the satellite performs a maneuver, and data on the location of the satellite; and Para. 0637, teaching that the information is accessible via an information disclosure request) for the benefit of sharing the records of the satellite’s movement with relevant third parties more efficiently.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the satellite movement determination and maneuver determination from Noel with to record the data on the satellite and compile it into a presentable form, as taught by Mukae, for the benefit of sharing the records of the satellite’s movement with relevant third parties more efficiently.
Regarding claim 15, Noel and Mukae remain as applied as in claim 14, and Mukae goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 14, wherein processing the satellite state data further comprises compiling the received raw satellite state data into a single dataset accessible via an application programming interface and searchable by time range, and the raw satellite state data is received in a form of multiple separate files via one or more ground states (Mukae: Para. 0150, teaching that the data on a space object is filtered based on its ID which is used to separate it between satellites and space debris).
Regarding claim 17, Noel and Mukae remain as applied as in claim 10, and Mukae goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 10, wherein the filtered satellite state data comprises historical satellite state data, and the historical satellite state data is real data associated with one or more historic state vectors of the satellite (Mukae: Para. 0214, teaching that the data on the space object includes historical information such as past maneuvers).
Regarding claim 18, Noel and Mukae remain as applied as in claim 10, and Mukae goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 10, wherein: the filtered satellite state data comprises future satellite state data, and the future satellite state data is projected data based on a dynamic model configured to predict future state vectors of the satellite (Mukae: Para. 0215, teaching determining predicted orbits of space objects based on current location and speed information and comparing the predicted and actual orbits to update the prediction of future orbits).
Regarding claim 19, Noel and Mukae remain as applied as in claim 9, and Mukae goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 9, the method further comprising mapping metadata relating to the satellite to the satellite state data, wherein the metadata comprises one or more of (a) data associated with physical dimensions of the satellite, (b) satellite attitude data, or (c) satellite thrust data comprising information associated with historic and future planned manoeuvres of the satellite (Mukae: Para. 0214, teaching that the data on the space object includes historical information such as past maneuvers; and Para. 0504, teaching that the data on the space object includes information its altitude).
Regarding claim 21, Noel and Mukae remain as applied as in claim 12, and Noel goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 12, wherein: the method further comprises supplying metadata for use in the filtering of the raw satellite state data, and; for each of the one or more scheduled manoeuvres, the received manoeuvre data comprises one or more of (a) time of the manoeuvre, (b) thrust duration, (c) thrust magnitude, (d) thrust direction, or (e) thrust specific impulse (Noel: Para. 0085, teaching that the predetermined maneuver plan includes information on when the thrusters fire, their duration, and other steering parameters).
Regarding claim 23, Noel and Mukae remain as applied as in claim 12, and Mukae goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 12, wherein: the one or more scheduled manoeuvres include one or more future scheduled manoeuvres of the satellite; the method further comprises maintaining a dynamic model of a movement of the satellite wherein the data relating to the one or more future scheduled manoeuvres is used to update the dynamic model; and estimates of the state of the satellite obtained from the dynamic model are used in the filtering of the received raw satellite state data (Mukae: Para. 0353, teaching the use of an AI machine learning module to adjust the predications of the orbits of space objects).
Regarding claim 26, Noel and Mukae remain as applied as in claim 23, and Mukae goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 23, wherein filtering the raw satellite state data is based on different estimates of the state of the satellite, and the different estimates include the raw state data and an estimate of the state of the satellite based on a future scheduled manoeuvre (Mukae: Para. 0215, teaching determining predicted orbits of space objects based on current location and speed information and comparing the predicted and actual orbits to update the prediction of future orbits).
Regarding claim 28, Noel and Mukae remain as applied as in claim 12, and Mukae goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 12, wherein the one or more scheduled manoeuvres include one or more historic manoeuvres (Mukae: Para. 0214, teaching that the data on the space object includes historical information such as past maneuvers); and Noel goes on to further teach for each of the one or more historic manoeuvres of the satellite, the manoeuvre data relating to the one or more historic manoeuvres of the satellite comprises measurement data of one or more of (a) time of the manoeuvre, (b) thrust duration, (c) thrust magnitude, (d) thrust direction, or (e) thrust specific impulse (Noel: Para. 0085, teaching that the predetermined maneuver plan includes information on when the thrusters fire, their duration, and other steering parameters).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 19th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed March 19th, 2026 with respect to the 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1-3, 8, 34, and 39 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends (see page 2 line 18 through page 3 line 4, filed March 19th, 2026) that the prior art of Noel is deficient in teaching “scheduling a satellite manoeuvre to begin during a first quarter of an orbit of the satellite around the Earth, the first quarter of the orbit starting at an estimated time at which the satellite will enter an eclipse of the Sun by the Earth”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the BRI of the claimed invention is that the satellite manoeuvre occurs during a quarter orbit that begins when the satellite enters an eclipse which ties into the prior art of Noel in the embodiment of a single variable thrust from paragraph 0045 which states that the manoeuvre may become desirable to occur during an eclipse. MPEP 2131.03(I) recites “"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original) (Claims to titanium (Ti) alloy with 0.6-0.9% nickel (Ni) and 0.2-0.4% molybdenum (Mo) were held anticipated by a graph in a Russian article on Ti-Mo-Ni alloys because the graph contained an actual data point corresponding to a Ti alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni and this composition was within the claimed range of compositions.).” As the embodiment of a single variable thrust manoeuvre from Noel may occur inside the eclipse, the range in which the manoeuvres of Noel overlaps with the claimed quarter range that begins when the satellite enters an eclipse with the Earth.
Applicant contends (see page 3 lines 1-3, filed March 19th, 2026) that the claimed range that the satellite manoeuvre begins during an eclipse and that “[a]s an eclipse lasts for approximately half of a satellite orbit, this first quarter cannot also include the end of an eclipse”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that a BRI of the claimed invention given the plain meaning of “eclipsed” is that the manoeuvre begins when the satellite begins to be covered by the shadow cast by the Earth as it is blocking the Sun (See MPEP 2110.01). This distinction is important because half of the orbit of the satellite is not eclipsed by the Earth, rather a rough estimate would have the eclipse be for 30% ~ 35% and would vary based on the time of day and the areas of the Earth currently being illuminated. As the satellite begins the manoeuvre in 25% of the orbit that begins when the Sun is eclipsed by the Earth, which would last 30% ~ 35% of the orbit, this would mean that any prior art that recites starting a satellite manoeuvre when the satellite is in a portion of the orbit where the Sun is eclipsed by the Earth would have a range overlapping the claimed invention well over half of the time.
Applicant contends (see page 3 line 24 through page 4 line 25, filed March 19th, 2026) that the prior art of Noel is deficient in teaching beginning a satellite manoeuvre during a quarter of the orbit that begins when the Sun is eclipsed by the Earth as one ordinarily skilled in the art would be motivated to have the single variable thrust manoeuvre from paragraph 0045 occur at the end of an eclipse as the other manoeuvres of Noel occur when the thrusters are exposed to the Sun. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that applicant’s contention is based around the previous contention that half of the orbit of the satellite is eclipsed by the Earth from the Sun and that one skilled in the art would take the teachings from Noel and start a satellite manoeuvre in the second half of the eclipsed orbit rather than the first as claimed. The examiner notes that, as previously mentioned, one ordinarily skilled in the art would understand that the BRI of the claimed invention under the plain meaning of “eclipsed” would find that the satellite would begin the manoeuvre during the first quarter of the satellite orbit that spends roughly 30% ~ 35% in the eclipse, meaning that even if the single variable thrust manoeuvre of Noel occurs in the second half of the eclipsed orbit, one ordinarily skilled in the art could still be motivated to schedule the manoeuvre during the first quarter of the orbit that begins when the satellite enters the eclipsed as claimed.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 PM ET.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights